S-2340-117
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 190.
What it does
This bill would prohibit federal agencies and private businesses from publicly posting personal information — such as home addresses — of federal judges and their immediate family members. It would require that such information be removed upon a written request from the judge, bar data brokers from buying or selling this information, and create programs at the state and local level to protect judges' personal data and enhance their physical security.
Who benefits
Federal judges (approximately 1,700 active Article III judges) and their immediate family members, who would gain stronger privacy protections and reduced exposure to physical threats. State and local law enforcement agencies would receive federal support and funding for judicial security programs. Court security personnel would benefit from enhanced resources.
Who is hurt
Data brokers and people-search companies, whose business models depend on aggregating and selling personal information, would face new legal restrictions and potential revenue loss. Journalists, researchers, and members of the public who use publicly available records to track government officials' activities could face reduced access to information about judges. Businesses that rely on public records for legitimate purposes (e.g., process servers, background check firms) could face operational constraints.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that federal judges face a documented and growing threat of targeted violence — a threat made more acute by the easy availability of their home addresses through data brokers and public records. The bill's namesake, Daniel Anderl, was killed in 2020 when a gunman came to the home of his mother, a federal judge, seeking to harm her. Supporters contend that judges must be able to make impartial decisions free from fear of personal harm, and that protecting their private information is a narrow, targeted measure that does not broadly restrict public access to government records. They argue that the First Amendment does not protect the commercial sale of personal data when that data creates a direct safety risk, and that the government has a compelling interest in protecting the independence of the federal judiciary.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that restricting access to public records — even for a sympathetic class of individuals — sets a precedent that could be extended to other government officials, gradually eroding public transparency and accountability. They contend that information about where public officials live is sometimes legitimately relevant to journalism, legal proceedings, and civic oversight, and that broad prohibitions on data brokers may sweep in lawful uses alongside harmful ones. Some raise First Amendment concerns about government-mandated suppression of truthful, lawfully obtained information, citing cases where courts have scrutinized such restrictions. Others argue that the bill creates a two-tiered privacy system that benefits a powerful class of government employees while ordinary citizens have no equivalent protection from data brokers.
Constitutional context
The bill implicates the Commerce Clause (Art. I, Sec. 8), as Congress would regulate data brokers operating in interstate commerce — authority broadly upheld since Wickard v. Filburn (1942). First Amendment questions arise around government-compelled removal of truthful information, an area where courts apply heightened scrutiny. The Takings Clause (5th Amendment) could be raised if data brokers argue that mandatory data deletion constitutes a taking of property. Post-Loper Bright (2024), any agency rules implementing the bill's removal or enforcement mechanisms would face independent judicial review without deference to agency interpretation. The major questions doctrine (West Virginia v. EPA, 2022) could apply if implementing agencies assert broad authority beyond the bill's explicit text.
Checks and balances
The bill would expand Congressional authority over private data markets through Commerce Clause regulation. It would direct the Executive Branch — likely the U.S. Marshals Service and relevant agencies — to administer new judicial security programs, giving the Executive new administrative and funding authority. The Judicial Branch would gain a direct statutory right to demand removal of personal information, an unusual instance of judges holding individual statutory rights enforceable against private parties. State and local governments would receive federal program support, though the Tenth Amendment's anti-commandeering doctrine (post-Murphy v. NCAA) limits how far Congress can direct state officials.
Historical precedent
The Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA) is a close precedent — it prohibited states from disclosing personal information from motor vehicle records and was upheld by the Supreme Court in Reno v. Condon (2000) as a valid Commerce Clause regulation of state data practices.