Daniel's Law Case Returns to Federal Appeals Court
The contested civil proceeding involving respondent We Inform LLC returns to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals following a state Supreme Court ruling.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 15, 2026, 11:53 p.m. ET
This matter is open. Agencies announce the actions they bring far more reliably than the ones they lose, so an action reported here may since have been settled, dismissed or decided without a further announcement.
Earlier reports
Aug 15, 2026, 11:53 p.m. ETFirst report
NJ Supreme Court Issues Ruling in Daniel's Law Case
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs seeking actual damages under Daniel's Law do not need to prove that a defendant acted with a particular mental state, JD Journal reported. Daniel's Law is a New Jersey statute that protects judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement officers from the public disclosure of personal information.
According to JD Journal, the appellate matter is a contested civil proceeding involving respondent We Inform LLC. The case remains open and developing as it returns to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where the broader First Amendment challenge to Daniel's Law remains undecided.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
- NJ Judges Face New Threat to Personal Privacyjdjournal.com
Revision history
- Version 116 Aug 2026, 04:23current
First published.
- Version 116 Aug 2026, 03:53current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.