Michigan House Bill HB4397

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/29/25
• Refer: 4/29/25

Caption

Courts: judges; personal information and physical safety protections for judges, their families, and household members; enhance. Creates new act.

Impact

If enacted, HB 4397 will significantly influence state laws related to the protection of personal information for judges. The bill provides mechanisms for judges to formally request that public bodies refrain from disclosing their personal information and mandates the removal of any existing public postings within a specified timeframe. Compliance failures may lead to legal action, allowing judges or their family members to seek remedies for noncompliance, which underscores the importance of judicial security in contemporary legal contexts. As a result, public bodies may need to adjust their practices regarding data management and disclosures to uphold this new standard.

Summary

House Bill 4397, also known as the Judicial Protection Act, is aimed at enhancing the safety and privacy of judges and their immediate families. The bill establishes protective measures to limit the public disclosure of personal identifying information of judges, which includes addresses, phone numbers, and other sensitive details. The intent behind this legislation is to safeguard the personal security of judges who may face threats due to their professional duties. By shielding judges and their families from public scrutiny, the bill seeks to mitigate risks associated with their roles in the judiciary.

Contention

Some points of contention surrounding HB 4397 revolve around the balance between public transparency and the necessity of personal safety for government officials. Critics may argue that while the protection of judges is paramount, it should not infringe upon the public's right to information or accountability of the judiciary. The bill's provisions regarding exemptions, such as the display of information for news reporting or personal disclosures by the judges themselves, are subjects that could spark further debate on how best to protect judicial figures without compromising public access to information or accountability mechanisms.