Committee hears bill to shield judges’ personal data after attacks on judiciary

House Judiciary Committee members heard testimony on House Bill 4,397, the Judicial Protection Act, a measure that would let judges request that certain personally identifying information (PII) about them and immediate family members be withheld from public display to reduce doxxing and threats.

The bill’s sponsor told the committee the proposal mirrors a federal law and aims to bring state judges into parity with protections already available to many federal judges.

U.S. District Judge Esther Salas told the committee that five years after a gunman killed her son and wounded her husband, judges face an evolving range of threats that include weaponized deliveries and public disclosure of home addresses. "Dozens and dozens of pizzas have been delivered to judges' homes," Salas said, arguing that such actions are used to intimidate and to signal, "we know where you live. We know where your children live." She urged lawmakers to pass the bill to make it harder for attackers to find judges and their families.

Judge David McKeague, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, said the federal Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act—which he said passed Congress with bipartisan majorities—did not cover state-held records and state judges. He described House Bill 4,397 as a state implementation of the federal law, limited in scope to judges and their households, and noted that many other states have taken similar steps. "The danger faced by our federal and state judges is real, it's growing, and we need your help to address this compelling interest," McKeague told the committee.

Nathan Triplett, director of public policy and governmental relations for the State Bar of Michigan, laid out operational details included in the bill. The bill would let a judge submit a written request—on a form to be prescribed by the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO)—identifying the PII to be protected. Public bodies and private persons would have five business days to comply; if they do not, a judge may commence a civil action to compel compliance. Triplett said the bill does not create new criminal penalties or civil fines and noted the measure limits the definition of PII to items with a demonstrated link to safety, such as a permanent residential address, license plate number or information about a child’s school or daycare. He said the bill also allows certain enumerated exceptions, for example to permit publication of a judge’s city or township or a judge’s date of birth where required by the Michigan Constitution.

Committee members pressed witnesses on the bill’s scope and implementation. Representative Goel asked whether protections had been considered for prosecutors or police; Triplett said the bill was intentionally narrow and focused on implementing the federal scheme for judges, and that expanding coverage would require a different, larger administrative system. "This legislation isn't trying to create a whole new exemption. It's trying to implement an already existing exemption and make that information consistent across the judiciary," Triplett said. He added that SCAO has been assigned duties in the bill so implementation can proceed administratively, and that funds were appropriated in a prior budget cycle and a vendor identified.

Representative DeBoer and others raised equity and messaging concerns about providing protections to judges but not to other victims of stalking and harassment. McKeague and other witnesses said the bill is narrowly tailored to address threats that aim to intimidate or influence judicial decision-making and that it does not foreclose the legislature from considering protections for other groups.

A public commenter, Brad Dolan of Holland Township, opposed the bill as written and urged caution about implementation, citing his own high-conflict family-court experience and the potential for the protections to conceal misconduct. "I don't disagree the judges need protection, but I do ask for a word of caution, a moment of, pause on the implementation," Dolan said.

Committee members did not take a vote on the bill during the hearing. The committee adopted minutes from its April 30 meeting by unanimous consent earlier in the session, but no formal action on House Bill 4,397 was recorded at this hearing.

The bill’s supporters at the hearing included representatives of the State Bar of Michigan, the Michigan Judges Association, the Michigan District Court Judges Association and other judges and court stakeholders; written cards in support were read into the record for several organizations. Witnesses said SCAO will create the required form and that the law, if enacted, would allow judges to delegate requests to SCAO for processing and compliance.

If advanced by the committee, the legislation would move through the normal legislative process and could be amended. Supporters urged a swift response to rising threats to judges; witnesses repeatedly emphasized that the bill is meant to protect judges’ ability to carry out their duties without intimidation.