The Price of Fear: “Daniel’s Law” is a weapon against the public that may get worse

By James J Devine

In 2020, a monstrous crime shook New Jersey. A gunman, seeking to assassinate U.S. District Court Judge Esther Salas, killed her 20-year-old son Daniel Anderl and grievously wounded her husband.

The response—Daniel’s Law—was born of grief and a genuine desire to prevent such horror from recurring.

But grief is a poor legislator and we know where good intentions lead us.

Daniel’s Law has metastasized into something far beyond its original intent: a sweeping, punitive regime that shields an ever-expanding class of government employees from public scrutiny while choking off access to information that is essential to democratic accountability.

Now, two state senators—Parker Space (R-Sussex) and Brian Stack (D-Hudson)—want to extend this flawed law to out-of-state judges and police officers.

It is time to say: enough.

The Law’s Real-World Damage

The most immediate casualty of Daniel’s Law is transparency in real estate records. Before the law took effect, New Jersey’s county tax boards maintained an online tool that allowed anyone to look up property ownership, tax assessments, lot sizes, and sales histories. That tool is now gone, dismantled because it might expose a protected official’s home address.

This is not an abstract loss. Property records are the single most important tool for detecting political corruption through real estate. When a governor sells struggling lakefront properties to buyers who subsequently receive state contracts and board appointments, as reporting on Georgia Governor Brian Kemp has revealed, it is property records that make the connection visible. When public officials enrich themselves through sweetheart land deals, it is deeds and assessments that expose the scheme. By shuttering these records, Daniel’s Law makes corruption harder to detect and easier to hide.

The damage extends far beyond real estate. The New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) recently removed decades of campaign finance reports from its website, citing Daniel’s Law. These are the documents that show who funds political campaigns—the raw material of investigative journalism and watchdog oversight. ELEC claims the removal is “temporary,” but the effect is the same: the public’s ability to instantly access campaign finance records has been replaced by a cumbersome request process that can take months.

And now, the proposed expansion would allow out-of-state police officers and judges to demand the same protections. A retired NYPD detective, worried about retaliation, prompted the bill. But the logic of the law is a one-way ratchet: each expansion normalizes the concealment, each amendment makes it harder to argue that any public servant’s address should be public.

The First Amendment Problem

Daniel’s Law has survived constitutional challenges in New Jersey, but only barely. The state Supreme Court ruled that the law’s fines do not require violations to be intentional—meaning a data broker can be penalized $1,000 per violation simply for failing to remove information, regardless of knowledge or intent.

This strict-liability standard is precisely what doomed West Virginia’s version of Daniel’s Law. In August 2025, a federal district court held that West Virginia’s statute was facially unconstitutional, finding that it regulated protected speech without adequate safeguards and was not narrowly tailored to serve its compelling interest. The court noted that the law lacked “any mechanism, such as a notice requirement or knowledge element, that could narrowly tailor the provision”.

New Jersey’s law contains the same structural flaws. It imposes mandatory damages on private entities while granting government agencies broad discretion to withhold information. It allows covered persons to assign their claims to third parties like Atlas Data Privacy Corp., a company that has built its entire business model around mass enforcement of Daniel’s Law claims. This is not privacy protection; it is a litigation factory.

The broader constitutional concern is that Daniel’s Law creates a category of information—home addresses of certain public employees—that is somehow too dangerous to publish. But the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that truthful information lawfully obtained about matters of public significance cannot be suppressed simply because it might be misused by bad actors. The remedy for dangerous speech is more speech, not censorship.

The Security Argument Is Overblown

Let us be clear: threats against judges and law enforcement are real and must be taken seriously. The U.S. Marshals Service reported over 500 threats against federal judges in fiscal year 2025. This is a genuine problem that deserves a genuine response.

But Daniel’s Law is not a genuine response. It is a blunt instrument that addresses a narrow problem by imposing broad costs on the public. The assassination attempt on Judge Salas was a horrific anomaly—a type of crime that is extraordinarily rare. The vast majority of threats against judges involve harassment, intimidation, or swatting—serious matters, but not attempted murder.

There are better ways to protect judges and law enforcement officers. The federal government already operates a robust judicial security infrastructure. New Jersey could invest in security assessments, home security systems, and threat monitoring for at-risk officials. It could work with the U.S. Marshals Service to expand protection programs. What it should not do is dismantle public records systems that serve every citizen’s right to know.

The founders understood that government power must be checked by an informed public. They were wary of officials who insulated themselves from scrutiny, who claimed that their special status exempted them from the transparency that democracy requires. Daniel’s Law is precisely this kind of insulation, dressed up as safety.

The Tragedy of Daniel Anderl

Daniel Anderl was a young man with a future. His death was a tragedy that no law can undo. His mother, Judge Salas, has endured unimaginable pain. No one should minimize that suffering.

But bad laws do not become good laws because they are passed with good intentions. Daniel’s Law has proven to be a failure—a well-meaning response that has produced broad and destructive consequences. It has gutted real estate transparency, crippled campaign finance disclosure, and created a cottage industry of litigation that punishes data brokers for failing to read minds.

The proposed expansion to out-of-state officials would only make things worse. It would extend the law’s reach without addressing its fundamental flaws. It would create new opportunities for concealment without adding meaningful security.

Americans should recognize Daniel’s Law for what it is: a bad law. It should be repealed, not expanded. And if New Jersey’s legislators genuinely care about protecting judges and police, they should pursue solutions that do not require sacrificing the public’s right to know.

The bill’s sponsors are precisely the people New Jersey’s transparency laws were designed to keep an eye on.

Brian Stack is one of the last remaining “double dippers” grandfathered in under the 2007 ban on holding two elected offices—a practice the Legislature deemed illegal precisely because concentrated power breeds corruption.

Parker Space, meanwhile, wears a Confederate flag tattoo and was caught on tape calling a female opponent a “bitch”.

These are the men who want to expand Daniel’s Law. Let that sink in.

Stack: The exception to the rule

New Jersey banned dual office-holding in 2007. The law was clear: no person shall simultaneously hold a seat in the Legislature and another elected office in the state.

Brian Stack does it anyway.

He is the Mayor of Union City and a State Senator. When the ban passed, Stack was grandfathered in—allowed to keep both offices because he already held them. That was nearly two decades ago. The grandfather clause was supposed to be a temporary accommodation, not a permanent exemption for one man.

Stack now chairs the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee. He runs Union City with an “intimidating get-out-the-vote operation,” winning re-election unopposed with over 11,000 votes in a race where nobody bothered to challenge him. He is simultaneously a lawmaker, a mayor, and a kingmaker in Hudson County politics.

And he wants to expand a law that shields public officials from scrutiny.

Space: The treasonous pro-slavery  legislator

Parker Space’s controversies are not ancient history. In 2017, photos surfaced showing a Confederate flag tattoo on his bicep. His chief of staff claimed it represented the Dukes of Hazzard—a TV show from the 1980s that went off the air before Space was elected to anything.

That same year, audio emerged of Space repeatedly calling his Democratic opponent a “bitch”. He refused to resign. His district re-elected him anyway.

Space is now a State Senator. He is the face of a bill to expand Daniel’s Law.

The Pattern Is the Point

Why do these two specific lawmakers want to shield out-of-state judges and cops from public disclosure?

Stack has spent his career consolidating power across multiple levels of government. He has personally benefited from the grandfather clause that most New Jerseyans would consider a loophole. Expanding Daniel’s Law to out-of-state officials is another brick in the wall between public servants and the public they serve.

Space’s record speaks for itself. A lawmaker who displays the Confederate flag—the symbol of a rebellion fought to preserve slavery—now wants to hide the addresses of law enforcement officials. The irony would be laughable if the stakes weren’t so high.

What This Means for Daniel’s Law

The proposed expansion to out-of-state judges and police is not about safety. It is about normalization. Each amendment to Daniel’s Law makes the concealment of public officials’ information seem more reasonable, more routine, more permanent. The sponsors of this bill are betting that New Jerseyans won’t notice who is doing the expanding.

They should notice.

Daniel’s Law was born from a tragedy. But it has been sustained and expanded by people whose own conduct suggests they have something to hide. Brian Stack has held two elected offices for over twenty years despite a law banning the practice. Parker Space has a Confederate flag tattooed on his body. These are not the guardians of public trust. They are the reasons we need public records in the first place.

Repeal Daniel’s Law. And while we’re at it, close the grandfather clause that keeps Brian Stack in two jobs at once.