Jackson v. Thomson Reuters America Corporation

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Date Filed: March 10, 2026

Background: A West Virginia law enacted in 2021 would, if permitted to take effect, prohibit the disclosure of the home address and other information of certain current and former public officials, but contains no exemption for news reporting.  As such, it might bar disclosure, or chill journalists from gathering and publishing news, even when the information is central to accountability reporting in the public interest. The law was modeled after New Jersey’s “Daniel’s Law,” which was introduced in response to the tragic murder of Daniel Anderl, the 20-year-old son of a federal district judge in New Jersey, but its broad provisions lack protections for the press and other speakers.

After a former law enforcement officer sued several data brokers, claiming they violated the law by publishing his home address and phone number, a federal district court judge in West Virginia ruled the law’s blanket restriction on publishing certain information violated the First Amendment. 

The officer appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Our Position: In a friend-of-the-court brief joined by 16 news media organizations, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press is urging the Fourth Circuit to uphold the lower-court ruling, pointing to examples of accountability journalism that depended on the ability to access and publish information covered by West Virginia’s Daniel’s Law.

• The First Amendment protects the press’s editorial autonomy and the ability of journalists to decide when information is in the public interest.

• West Virginia’s Daniel’s Law, which would suppress truthful facts on matters of public concern and create traps for the unwary, could chill news reporting and cannot survive constitutional scrutiny.

From the Brief: “Were the law allowed to enter force, the statute could deprive journalists of information they need to do their jobs, lead journalists to self-censor, and give public officials a legal cudgel to suppress accountability reporting perceived as critical or embarrassing.”

Related: The Reporters Committee has previously highlighted how these laws, while well-intentioned, would chill news reporting on matters of public concern, including in a 2023 friend-of-the-court brief filed in a New Jersey appeals court.