New York is ramping up privacy protections for judges and their families at a time when former President Donald Trump’s court trials in Manhattan have helped make some of those people targets of a wave of threats.
A new state law taking effect in July will allow New York-based judges and their close family members to effectively wipe their personally identifying information from the internet. The measure is meant to protect them from people looking to harass or harm them.
The law was conceived after a federal judge’s son was murdered in New Jersey in 2020, well before Trump’s Manhattan trials. But its implementation comes amid a wave of fiery rhetoric criticizing New York judges on social media, including from Trump, his allies and — in other cases — high-ranking members of the NYPD.
Known as the New York State Judicial Security Act, the law mirrors measures passed on the federal level and in other states in recent years. Still, it is rankling some First Amendment organizations, who say that permitting courts to order the removal of information from private websites could run afoul of free speech rights.
“We can’t live in a vacuum,” said state Assemblymember Charles Lavine, a Nassau County Democrat who sponsored the measure before it made it into the state budget last month. “We know that the former president has done everything he can to gin up public support to hate judges, prosecutors, lawyers and even jurors.”
The measure was sparked by a 2020 attack on the family of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas. A critic of the judge went to her home, killed her 20-year-old son and shot her husband. The incident spurred a similar federal law, in 2021, that applies specifically to federal judges.
Starting this summer, the New York law will allow current and former judges to seek the removal of their home addresses, cell phone numbers, personal email addresses, identity of their spouse and young children and similar identifying information from a particular website or publication. It will also cover their close family members’ information.
Meanwhile, judges presiding over several trials in Manhattan against Trump have faced a barrage of threats and negative comments. In February, someone sent an envelope filled with white powder to Justice Arthur F. Engoron, the state judge who oversaw a civil trial regarding Trump’s finances. Court Officer-Captain Charles Hollon said in a court filing last fall that the judge received a stream of “harassing and disparaging comments and threats” before the trial and that they “increased exponentially” once the proceedings began.
Justice Juan Merchan, the judge presiding over Trump’s ongoing criminal trial in Manhattan, has also been criticized by the president and his supporters. The former president has called Merchan out by name and deemed him “crooked” and “highly conflicted.”
“The judge hates Donald Trump,” said Trump. “Just take a look. Take a look at him. Take a look at where he comes from. He can’t stand Donald Trump.”
Trump isn’t the only high-profile figure regularly criticizing New York judges. Members of the NYPD’s top brass have increasingly turned to social media to scold members of the judiciary who they consider “soft on crime.” In February, Chief of Patrol John Chell chided the wrong judge on X.
The new state law is intended to make it harder for people to carry out threats to harm judges. Often, those who make threats get judges’ personal contact information from online databases.
That was the case in March, when a Buffalo-area man was arrested for sending death threats to Engoron and state Attorney General Letitia James, who had brought a civil lawsuit against Trump. In court documents, state police said the man acquired Engoron’s and James’ numbers by “using a paid online background website.”
Justice Verna L. Saunders, president of the Association of Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, which advocates for state judges, praised the new law. She also asked lawmakers to add others who work in the court system to the protections. Currently, the law only applies to judges and their immediate family members, including spouses, former spouses, parents, children and siblings.
“We appreciate the protections being extended to judges by virtue of this legislation and believe all court personnel, including court officers, who are on the front line for concerns this bill is addressing, should be included,” Saunders said in a statement.
Critics of the legislation say its intent is noble but it goes too far in restricting access to certain information. The nonprofit Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press argues that such measures could prevent journalists from obtaining information that could be used to hold judges accountable.
While the new law includes a caveat that allows the information to be disseminated for reporting and newsgathering meant to “inform the public on matters of public interest or public concern,” Grayson Clary, staff attorney at the Reporters Committee, said that’s insufficient. “If there’s nowhere to learn these facts in the first place, if all the sources for this kind of information dry up, then you’re not going to see any reporting driven by it downstream,” he said.
The state Office of Court Administration did not respond to several requests for data on threats against judges in New York. And Lavine, the state assemblymember, said he was unaware of any such statistics on the state level.
A 2005 report by a state Task Force on Court Security found that judges and other court personnel had faced more than 1,300 threats in the previous decade. Every judge in New York receives a handbook on judicial threats that outlines what they should do if they receive a threat, according to the report.
On the federal level, animosity toward court personnel has surged in recent years as Trump has repeatedly publicly criticized the judiciary. Threats and harassment against judges, prosecutors and court staff have more than tripled since Trump announced his first run for president, a recent Reuters analysis of U.S. Marshals Service data found.
Lavine said that although he has heard from organizations with First Amendment concerns about the new law, it’s necessary to protect New York’s judicial branch. “In the end, this is all a matter of balance,” he said. “We have to take the steps that are necessary to protect our judges and people who work in the courts, because if we don’t, we will not have democracy.”