On July 24, 2026, the 4th Circuit struck down West Virginia’s 2021 law that made it a crime to publish judges’ home addresses. The ruling, written by Circuit Judge Steven Agee, said the statute was too broad and lacked a notice‑and‑takedown safeguard. The court reaffirmed that the First Amendment protects truthful, publicly available information even when it concerns public officials.
The law was part of Daniel’s Law, a wave of state statutes named after Daniel Anderl, the 20‑year‑old son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas who was shot dead at his family home in 2020 after an attorney found the judge’s address online. West Virginia lawmakers adopted the measure in 2021, joining New Jersey, Florida and others in banning the release of official addresses to curb doxxing and violence.
Agee explained that while the state has a legitimate interest in protecting judges, the statute failed to provide a clear prior‑notice mechanism, effectively imposing strict liability on news outlets, data brokers and even casual social‑media users. The court compared West Virginia’s approach with New Jersey’s, which triggers liability only after a formal takedown request. The absence of such a safeguard made the ban an unconstitutional restriction on speech.
Software and Information Industry Association attorneys argued that the law exposed data aggregators and journalists to unpredictable legal risk without a first‑notice requirement. Industry groups welcomed the decision, saying it restores a balance between safety and free‑speech rights. West Virginia officials have not yet announced whether they will petition the Supreme Court or re‑draft the law.
For Judge Salas, the ruling comes after years of fearing for her family’s safety. “The law was meant to keep us safe, but it also took away the public’s right to know about public officials,” she said in an interview. The decision, however, leaves her family with the question of how to keep their home private without violating the Constitution.
The court’s ruling sets a precedent for other states weighing similar legislation. The next move will likely be a decision by West Virginia lawmakers to either file a petition to the Supreme Court or overhaul the statute to incorporate a notice‑and‑takedown process. The outcome could influence the broader national debate over privacy and free speech in the data‑driven era.