By Lauren Berg
Representatives Lucy McBath, D-Ga., and Michael McCaul, R-Texas, on Tuesday reintroduced legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives to better protect state and local judges from threats and violence that are "becoming increasingly more common" against the judiciary.
Judicial officers throughout the country are increasingly on the receiving end of threats of violence, but unlike their federal colleagues, state and local judges don't have a resource center on judicial security, according to a statement released by McBath and McCaul.
The Countering Threats and Attacks on Our Judges Act would establish a State Judicial Threat Intelligence and Resource Center to maintain a national database to report and track threats against judges and court staff; provide technical assistance; provide physical security assessments for courts; and research best practices for judicial security.
"Threats and personal attacks against judges and court personnel are becoming increasingly more common, and no person should fear for their safety while simply doing their job," McBath, ranking member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, said in a statement, adding that the bill "will provide our state and local courts with tools they need to protect our judges and court personnel."
McCaul added, "This bipartisan bill sends a clear message: violence or threats against our judicial officers is never acceptable. No public servant should have to live in fear for themselves or their families."
"Amidst a dramatic increase in threats against our state and local judges, I am proud to support this critical legislation to help bolster judicial security and preserve the important work taking place in state and local courthouses around the nation," he said.
The new center would be housed within the State Justice Institute, a nonprofit corporation established by Congress in 1984 to assist state courts.
Sens. Chris Coons, D-Del., and John Cornyn, R-Texas, introduced a companion bill in the U.S. Senate, where it passed unanimously last June. An earlier version of the House bill was introduced last April.
The proposed legislation has received support from a wide range of judicial organizations, including the National Center for State Courts, National District Attorneys Association, American Judges Association and Council of Chief Judges of the State Courts of Appeal.
"Across the nation we have seen threats on and attacks against state and local judges increase, including near-fatal attacks on state judges in Texas and Ohio, and attacks on or threats against state judges in California, Idaho, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, New York, Rhode Island and Wyoming," Chief Justice Matthew Durrant of the Utah Supreme Court and president of the Conference of Chief Justices said in a statement Tuesday, urging the "swift passage" of the bill.
Nelson Bunn, executive director of the National District Attorneys Association, added, "As public servants, prosecutors deserve to fulfill their duties free from fear or threats."
He said the bill "provides the necessary support to keep our state and local judges, prosecutors, and court staff and their families safe, preserves the rule of law, and safeguards our judicial systems."
The proposed legislation comes after a raft of data brokers asked the Third Circuit to undo a lower court ruling that found constitutional the New Jersey law named for the son of federal Judge Esther Salas, who was killed in July 2020 by a "men's rights" attorney who found the judge's home address online.
Roy Den Hollander, who was previously involved in a case before Judge Salas, was dressed as a FedEx delivery driver when he shot Daniel Anderl dead and critically injured Salas' husband and defense attorney Mark Anderl of Anderl & Oakley PC before fleeing from the family's North Brunswick, New Jersey, home.
Judge Salas was not injured in the attack.
The judicial privacy measure, Daniel's Law, gives judges and other public officials the right to ask public and private data sources to remove their home addresses, phone numbers and other personal information from the internet. Amendments made to the law in 2023 added mandatory damages and allowed covered people to assign their claims to third parties.
Atlas Data Privacy Corp. has filed more than 140 lawsuits on behalf of over 19,000 covered people against various data brokers, which argue that the law is unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Harvey Bartle III determined that the law withstands the required scrutiny of a privacy law because it does not block information that is of public interest, a ruling the data brokers have appealed.
--Additional reporting by Courtney Bublé, Jake Maher, Aebra Coe and Jack Karp. Editing by Emily Kokoll.