Judges get new protections under laws signed Wednesday

By Gretchen Schuldt

Gov. Tony Evers on Wednesday signed a bill allowing Wisconsin judges to take court action against people or businesses that post on the internet publicly available judicial officers’ personal information without the judges’ consent. 

Even their marital statuses could be off limits. 

Generally, under the First Amendment, governments cannot tell people what information they can or cannot post or share. But this law gives individual judges the private right of action to have the information removed from the Internet.

Judges from around the state supported the bill in public testimony, as they did the other two bills in the three-bill package. State Supreme Court Chief Justice Annette Ziegler said the law was patterned after similar protections for federal judges and judges in other states.

The governor signed all three bills in the package, including a constitutionally questionable bill, Assembly Bill 965 (now Act 234), that prohibits even peaceful demonstrations near a judge’s residence if the demonstrators are trying to disrupt the courts or influence the judge. The measure would criminalize violations, with a maximum punishment of up to $10,000 and nine months behind bars. WJI covered that bill here. 

The third approved bill, Assembly Bill 967 (now Act 236), exempts judicial security forms from public records disclosures. The forms are used to create security plans for judges.

The internet prohibition, Assembly Bill 966 (now Act 235), requires “all persons, businesses, and associations” to “refrain from publicly posting or displaying on the Internet publicly available content that includes the personal information of the judicial officer or the judicial officer's immediate family,” according to the Legislative Reference Bureau summary of the measure. 

The law singles out data brokers as being included in the prohibitions.

Individual judges would have to request nondisclosure, and that request would be good for 10 years. 

The law allows those judges to request the personal information be removed from the internet and gives the posting party 10 days to comply. 

Judges could seek an injunction or declaratory relief from a fellow judge if violations occur. If the filing judge wins the case, the posting person or entity “responsible for the violation shall be required to pay the judicial officer's costs and reasonable attorney fees,” the law says. 

Prevailing respondents in those cases would not be guaranteed the same financial compensation.

The posting party would be required to “ensure that the judicial officer's personal information is not made available on any website or subsidiary website controlled by that person, business, or association; and identify any other instances of the identified information that should also be removed,” the law says.

The law prohibits the sharing of information "through any medium" after a judge requests nondisclosure unless the information is voluntarily posted by the judge or immediate family member or if the judge requests the information be shared.

“Publicly available content” is defined in the law as any document or record “that provides information or that serves as a document or record maintained, controlled, or in the possession of a government agency that may be obtained by any person or entity, from the Internet, from the government agency upon request either free of charge or for a fee, or in response to a public records request.”

An exception would be made for information voluntarily posted on the internet by judges themselves, information the judges consent to have released, or information received legally from a federal or state government source. Immediate family members could release personal information about themselves.

The government may step in under some circumstances. The legislation makes it a felony to post information if it is done to create or increase a threat to the health and safety of the judge or immediate family or if injury or death "is a natural and probably consequence" of posting the information, according to the law. 

Also under new law, candidates for judicial office or circulating or signing nomination papers would not have to list their names and addresses. Instead, they would file a confidential certification of residency with the Wisconsin Elections Commission. 

The protections apply to Supreme Court justices or former justices; municipal, circuit, tribal, reserve, and appellate judges and former judges; and court commissioners and former court commissioners.

“Immediate family” is defined in the law as a judicial officer's spouse; a child of the judicial officer or of the judicial officer's spouse, including a foster child or an adult child living with the judicial officer; a parent of the judicial officer or the judicial officer's spouse; or any other person who resides at the judicial officer's residence. 

Personal information, as defined in the law, includes a home address; home or personal mobile telephone number; personal email address; Social Security number; driver's license number; federal tax identification number or state tax identification number; bank account or credit or debit card information; license plate number or other unique identifiers of vehicles regularly used by a judicial officer or a family member; identification of minor children; a full date of birth; employment location, including the name or address of an employer and employment schedules; and marital status.

Employment information does not include information about employment by a government agency.

Gov. Tony Evers signing AB965, AB966, and AB967 on Wednesday, March 27, 2024