A federal appeals panel wants the New Jersey Supreme Court to clarify whether Daniel’s Law, which prohibits the disclosure of certain public officials’ personal information, requires data companies to have willfully, wrongfully released such information to be deemed in violation of the law. (Dana DiFilippo | New Jersey Monitor)
A federal appeals panel has taken the unusual step of asking the New Jersey Supreme Court to weigh in on a constitutional challenge to a state law meant to protect certain public officials by shielding their home addresses and phone numbers from disclosure.
U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephanos Bibas said Daniel’s Law — passed in 2020 after a disgruntled lawyer fatally shot a federal judge’s son, Daniel Anderl, at their North Brunswick home — raises “a difficult First Amendment question that depends on an equally difficult question of statutory interpretation.”
“The questions are important and most suitable for the New Jersey Supreme Court,” Bibas wrote in a Tuesday filing. “New Jersey unanimously enacted the original version of this law in the wake of a tragic crime that made national headlines. The state has a strong interest in interpreting its own law — particularly if a federal court is unsure of its constitutionality.”
Bibas asked state Supreme Court justices to decide the narrow issue of “mens rea,” a Latin phrase that translates to “guilty mind” and essentially means wrongful intent. The federal appeals court will retain jurisdiction of the case and reconsider the constitutional challenge after the state justices decide if and how much Daniel’s Law requires a person or company to have acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently to be deemed in violation of the law, Bibas wrote.
The Supreme Court can accept or reject the 3d Circuit’s question, and if it accepts the question, will respond “as soon as practicable,” according to the rules of court.
The ongoing court battle started after state legislators in late 2023 amended the law to establish fines for violators of $1,000 per violation plus punitive damages, among other things.
Within months, the Atlas Data Privacy Corporation filed nearly 200 lawsuits claiming violations and seeking damages from data brokers who failed to take down protected people’s personal information within 10 business days, as the law requires. The corporation, which has about 19,000 subscribers, files claims on behalf of police and other people protected under Daniel’s Law and splits the damages with them if they win, according to Bibas’ ruling.
The data brokers responded by seeking to get the lawsuits dismissed and the law struck down as an overly broad, unconstitutional violation of their free speech rights. They argued that Daniel’s Law violates the First Amendment because it regulates speech based on its content and makes violators liable without proving ill intent.
A federal judge denied the dismissal motion in June, the data brokers appealed, and an appellate panel expedited the case and heard arguments in July.
In Tuesday’s order, Bibas noted that content-based restrictions on speech “can survive only if narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest,” Bibas noted.
The data brokers conceded that the law “serves compelling governmental interests,” the judge added. “Yet it raises hard constitutional questions because it restricts their speech and seems to make them liable without fault. To resolve this case, we need to know whether and what mental state(s) the law requires for liability.”
Bibas also noted that Daniel’s Law balances competing policy goals — protecting public officials from physical danger and fear just for doing their jobs while protecting residents’ rights to speak and learn about their public officials. The law has spurred dozens of challenges that risk conflicting court decisions without the state Supreme Court’s final word on the matter, he added.
“To resolve this case, we — and other courts facing similar matters — would benefit from an authoritative construction of the state statute by the New Jersey Supreme Court,” Bibas wrote. “Questions about the law are likely to recur. Certification will give us, litigants, other courts, and the public clear answers.”
A spokesman for the Attorney General’s Office, which is defending the law, declined to comment. The New Jersey State Policemen’s Benevolent Association did not respond to a request for comment.
John Molinelli, a spokesman for the data brokers and a former Bergen County prosecutor, said Bibas’ ruling underscores that Daniel’s Law is well-intentioned but flawed. A federal judge in West Virginia last month struck down a similar law there as unconstitutional, Molinelli added.
A coalition of data brokers fighting the law “believes strongly that New Jersey public servants covered under Daniel’s Law deserve its protections, but a legislative solution is required to restore the law’s original intent and ensure its constitutional survival,” Molinelli said in a statement.
The 3rd Circuit can seek state Supreme Court guidance on questions of law in ongoing court fights if “there is no controlling appellate decision, constitutional provision, or statute in this State,” according to court rules. The courts’ website lists nine times that has occurred in the past decade, with appellate judges seeking clarity on everything from the Consumer Fraud Act to furniture delivery regulations.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
