The Protecting Judicial Privacy Act of 2026 would restrict the public display of certain personal information about specified judicial officers, including U.S. Supreme Court justices, federal judges, D.C. appellate judges, and D.C. Superior Court judges, whether active or retired. The bill covers a broad set of personal data, such as home addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, financial account numbers, marital status, and the identities of minor children. It applies to both government agencies and private actors, including businesses, associations, internet search engines, data aggregators, and service providers.
Under the bill, a judicial officer may submit a written request asking that personal information be withheld from public display. Once a government agency receives such a request, it must remove the information from publicly available content within five business days and may not repost it without consent; the information would also be exempt from FOIA unless the judge consents. Private entities would have 48 hours to remove the information from the internet after receiving a request, and they would be prohibited from transferring the information to others after notice. The bill also bars internet-based solicitation, sale, or trade of a judge’s personal information when done with intent to pose an imminent and serious threat to the judge or immediate family.
The bill would change how District agencies handle records and FOIA requests involving judicial officers by creating a privacy-based exemption after a valid request is made. It also creates a private right of action in D.C. Superior Court for injunctive or declaratory relief if a covered entity fails to comply, and prevailing judicial officers may recover costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. The measure includes procedures for requests to be made directly or through the Mayor, requires annual reporting to the Council on requests submitted through the Mayor, and makes requests valid until revoked or until the judge dies.
Overall, the bill appears aimed at protecting judges from harassment, doxxing, and threats by limiting the online availability of sensitive personal information. Because no committee transcripts or votes were provided, there is no recorded legislative debate or voting history to indicate broader support or opposition. Based on the text alone, the bill is framed as a security and privacy measure rather than a general public-records restriction, but it does impose significant compliance obligations on government agencies and online/private information distributors.
The main points of potential contention are the breadth of the restrictions and the burden placed on both public agencies and private internet-related entities. Supporters would likely emphasize judicial safety and the risk of retaliation, while critics might question the impact on transparency, FOIA access, and the practicality of requiring removal from websites, search engines, and data aggregators within short deadlines. The bill also raises possible concerns about enforcement, the scope of covered entities, and whether the written-request process is sufficient to balance privacy with public access.
The bill would create a new District of Columbia legal framework protecting judicial officers’ personal information from public disclosure after a written request. It would require District agencies to remove specified personal information from publicly available records, treat that information as exempt from FOIA absent consent, and authorize judicial officers to seek injunctive or declaratory relief in Superior Court. It would also impose similar notice-and-removal obligations on private persons and internet-based businesses, while creating attorney’s-fee exposure for violators. The measure would affect District recordkeeping, FOIA administration, and online publication practices for agencies, websites, search engines, data brokers, and other private entities.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or formal support/opposition in the available materials. From the bill text, the measure is clearly presented as a protective privacy and safety bill for judges, suggesting an intent to address threats, harassment, and doxxing. The overall tone of the legislation is precautionary and security-focused, with the policy rationale centered on shielding judicial officers and their families from harm.
The likely areas of contention are the bill’s reach and its effect on public access to information. Opponents may argue that the measure limits transparency by restricting publicly available records and creating a FOIA exemption for covered personal information, while supporters are likely to argue that judges face unique safety risks that justify stronger privacy protections. Additional concerns may arise over the compliance burden on agencies and private internet platforms, the short removal deadlines, and the broad prohibition on reposting or transferring information after a request is made.