NJ Supreme Court Strikes a Blow Against Daniels Law

Data Strategy, Security and Privacy attorney Paul Bond was cited in a Law.com article covering a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that will affect the next stage of a constitutional challenge to Daniel's Law, the state's judicial security statute. The court found the part of Daniel's Law concerning actual damages does not include a mental state requirement, a conclusion that may raise First Amendment questions as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit considers whether the legislation is constitutionally valid. Enacted after the fatal shooting of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas' son, Daniel Anderl, the law is intended to protect judges, prosecutors, law enforcement officers, public officials and their families from the publication of sensitive personal information.

Paul has followed the litigation and noted the tension between the law's protective purpose and the constitutional concerns raised by restrictions on truthful, publicly available information. He also said some clients have received what he described as "the equivalent of ransom notes" threatening legal action under Daniel's Law.

"It takes a lot of courage to honestly examine a very popular law that is designed to protect judges, law enforcement officers and their families," he commented. "That's something that everybody wants, and everybody knows that this law had its genesis in the tragedy of Judge Salas and her son and husband."

READ: NJ Supreme Court Strikes a Blow Against Daniel's Law (Subscription required)

Paul is a member of Holland & Knight's New Jersey Business Law Team, a group of approximately 80 lawyers admitted to practice in New Jersey who advise companies operating in or maintaining connections to the Garden State. The team's experience includes data privacy and cybersecurity compliance and litigation, encompassing the issues implicated in this case.