Court cases that shape your privacy
Statutes are only half the picture. Courts decide whether the law has teeth, who counts as covered, and what happens when a broker drags its feet. Here are the rulings that matter for first responders, with plain-English holdings and why each one shapes practice.
Run a free scan. No signup.US Supreme Court
Top of the food chain. These rulings bind every court below.
Counterman v. Colorado
The Supreme Court held that prosecutions for true threats under the First Amendment require proof that the defendant subjectively understood his statements as threatening, applying a recklessness standard rather than an objective reasonable-person test.
Reno v. Condon
The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act against a Tenth Amendment challenge, ruling that Congress can regulate state DMV data sales under the Commerce Clause because driver records are an article of commerce.
Federal Appeals
Circuit courts. Their rulings bind every district court in the circuit.
Federal District
Where most federal cases get decided. Persuasive elsewhere.
State Supreme Courts
Final word on state-law questions. Binds every court in the state.
Atlas Data Privacy Corp. v. We Inform LLC (certified question, NJ Supreme Court)
Pending. The New Jersey Supreme Court heard oral argument on March 17, 2026 on two certified questions from the Third Circuit: (1) Does Daniel's Law require a mens rea (mental state) before liability attaches? (2) If so, which mens rea standard applies to which remedies? Decision pending as of May 2026.
City of Tallahassee v. Florida Police Benevolent Association
The Florida Supreme Court held that Marsy's Law (Fla. Const. art. I, §§ 16(b)–(e)) does not guarantee any victim, including a police officer, a categorical right to withhold their name from disclosure. The City of Tallahassee was not precluded from releasing the names of two officers whose conduct was at issue in separate fatal shootings.
Remsburg v. Docusearch, Inc.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that a private investigator and information broker can be liable in tort for selling personal information when the seller knew or should have known the buyer might use the information to harm the subject, and that the sale of a person's home address and workplace can support claims for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.