Judges at risk: The alarming exposure of personal information online

A well-functioning judicial system is crucial for upholding the rule of law. Judges bear the responsibility of applying and representing the law, which often involves dealing with individuals who have committed crimes and making decisions that aren’t popular with those convicted.

A recent study by McDermot, Murphy, Grimes, and Muffler, titled Perceptions and Experiences with Judicial Security Threats, shows that more than half (56%) of judges surveyed had received direct threats while doing their jobs.¹ This study, published in the American Judges Association’s quarterly Court Review publication, also highlights how some of the threats these judges faced extended to their families, with some judges having received letters, emails, and social media messages threatening harm to their loved ones. 

On top of that, an analysis by Incogni researchers suggests that over half of federal judges likely have their personal information exposed online.

There’s no shortage of examples of what exposing judges’ personal data can lead to. The case of a judge who was attacked in her driveway, shows that even an “ordinary case” can be enough to provoke an assault. With the increasing popularity of “political doxxing,” as seen in recent instances involving Supreme Court judges, the issue of personal data security is perhaps more timely than ever.

This prompts an important question: How is it that so many judges face these threats, despite the legal protection of their personal information?

Incogni researchers decided to take a closer look at the results of the McDermott et al. study and to examine the availability of judges’ data online.

Key insights

These are some of the main findings of both the Incogni and McDermott et al. studies:

• Nine out of ten judges are concerned about their personal information being exposed online.¹
• 56% of judges have received direct threats while serving the judiciary.¹
• Threats against federal judges have increased by 344% over six years, rising from 926 cases in 2015 to 4,511 in 2021.¹
• Over half of the judges in our study were likely discoverable through people search sites—we were able to locate personal information for 56% of the judges involved in our study.
• Almost a third of the likely exposed judges were listed on 5 or more websites.
• The personal information of federal judges available for free includes names, addresses, relatives, phone numbers and even judgments.

The reality of threats and attacks on judges

The responsibility of helping to maintain the rule of law is already a heavy burden. The added concern for one’s own safety and that of one’s family as a consequence of performing such a duty makes it even more difficult. Yet, this is the daily reality for most judges.

To provide a clearer understanding of this situation, here are some key findings from a study conducted by McDermott et al.:

• Judges feel personally unsafe: 83% of judges expressed concern about their own safety, and 74% worry about their family’s safety, because of their job.¹
• Judges do not even feel secure in their courthouses: 32% stated their court buildings do not feel secure.¹
• Judges recognize the threat of data exposure: 90% expressed concerns about their personal information, like home addresses, being available online.¹ 

Judges who experienced security incidents in the past feel less safe

The study by McDermott et al. offers additional insights into how past security incidents may affect a judge’s personal sense of safety.

Judges who have encountered such incidents tend to be more concerned about their own safety, their family’s safety, and the accessibility of their information online compared to those who have not experienced security incidents.¹

However, it’s important to note that both groups—those who had and those who had not experienced security incidents in the past—exhibit high levels of concern about their safety, with at least 60% expressing agreement with the majority of statements across both groups.

Below is a detailed breakdown of the primary security concerns among judges:

Female judges feel less safe than male judges

McDermott et al. also examined how male and female judges perceive their personal safety.

Overall, female judges felt less secure than their male counterparts in almost all the scenarios examined.

While the differences were relatively small (less than 5%), one category showed a more significant gap:

• 71% of female judges feel unsafe because of a decision they made in a case, compared to 60% of male judges.¹ 

Judges’ worries are based on real experiences

Judges’ safety concerns could stem from real threats and assaults they’ve faced in the past.

• Most judges have faced threats or intimidation: 70% reported receiving inappropriate communications and 56% reported receiving direct threats while serving.¹ 
• Female judges are more likely to be harassed: 75% of female judges claim they had received unsettling messages (inappropriate communications), compared to 62% of male judges.¹ 
• Threats target families, too: Some judges reported receiving letters, emails, or social media messages from people threatening to harm their loved ones.¹ 

The report by McDermott et al. also documents instances of actual assaults on judges, ranging from verbal abuse to physical attacks, including direct assaults on family members.

Moreover, it’s important to note that the situation has worsened for judges in recent years:

• Security threats against judges have skyrocketed: Threats, inappropriate communications, and attacks increased by 344% over just six years, from 2015 to 2021.¹ 
• Being a judge is becoming more dangerous: 79% of judges believe their job is riskier today than it was in the past.¹ 

Judges’ personal information is compromised

On December 23, 2022, President Biden signed the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act into law, effectively making the exposure of federal judges’ personal information illegal.

Here is a direct summary of the bill from Congress.gov:

This bill generally prohibits federal agencies and private businesses from publicly posting the personally identifiable information (e.g., home addresses) of federal judges and their immediate family members. It also […] prohibits data brokers from purchasing or selling such information.2

If this law were universally respected, we would not have been able to locate these judges so easily on people search sites. However, our research indicates otherwise.

Starting with just basic data (name, age, city, and state), the Incogni researchers were able to uncover federal judges’ home addresses, relatives, contact details, and work history—all through people search sites that provide this information. 

Similar laws are being widely enacted at the state level as well. Michigan has recently passed a bill aimed at protecting state-level judges. However, each state implements its own legislation, resulting in varying levels of protection for judges’ personal information. Some apply only to specific types of records, while others require a threat or a belief that the judge is in danger to initiate a request for public information removal.

While there is still progress to be made, the trend clearly indicates a commitment from both federal and state governments to enhance the protection of judges’ personal information.

More than half of US federal judges are likely on people search sites

For this study, the Incogni researchers compiled a list of 270 US Courts of Appeals judges and searched for the availability of their data on over 50 people search sites (PSS).

Out of the 270 judges Incogni researchers searched for, 150 (or 56%) were found to likely have their information available** on at least one people search site.

About a third of those judges were likely listed on 5 or more people search sites.

**By “likely have their information available,” we mean cases with a greater than 75% probability that the data matched.

The findings indicate that the personal information of more than half of the US federal judges included in our study could potentially be exposed online. Furthermore, this information is not merely accessible; it’s being commercialized, as the majority of people search sites require payment before disclosing full profiles.

Personal data exposure goes beyond just home addresses

Due to the nature of their work, judges often engage with criminals, and these interactions are frequently far from pleasant. As a result, judges face an increased risk of becoming targets for retaliation from individuals they have sentenced.

With minimal effort, malicious actors can acquire judges’ contact information from people search sites, including phone numbers, email addresses, names of relatives, social media profiles, and more.

Below is a sample list of information that people search sites are likely to expose about judges.

Given the extent to which personal data is exposed online, it’s unsurprising that many judges take some security measures.

According to the study by McDermott et al., judges use an average of five security precautions, like locking doors, installing cameras, or removing personal information from public records.

Moreover:

• 32% of judges have carried a gun for protection.¹
• 38% of judges change their travel routes for security reasons—some avoid taking the same route to work to prevent being followed.¹ 

8 out of 12 circuit courts likely have over half of their judges exposed

For this study, the Incogni team included judges from all 12 regional circuits of appeal courts. The findings are concerning:

• In 8 out of 12 regional circuit courts, more than half of the judges are probably listed on people search sites.
• The fifth circuit court has the highest number of judges likely listed on at least one people search site, with 88% of them likely exposed.
• The third circuit court has the fewest judges likely listed on people search sites, with 33% of them likely exposed.

Judges aged 90 or above have an exposure rate of 64%

While the differences in exposure based on judges’ age were not substantial, there are still noteworthy details to highlight.

According to the findings of our team:

• The youngest judges, those aged 50 and under, were the least likely to appear on people search sites, with an exposure rate of 50%.
• Other age groups exhibited similar exposure rates of approximately 55%.
• Notably, judges aged 90 or above experienced a higher exposure rate, reaching 64%.

Conclusions

The findings of our analysis indicate that the judiciary system in the US may possess a significant vulnerability concerning the safety of judges. This vulnerability has the potential to undermine the effectiveness of the justice system.

For the judicial system to be functional, certain conditions must be fulfilled. One is the protection of judges from potential retaliation by individuals affected by their decisions.

Without this assurance, the very foundation of the judicial system is compromised—a judge can only render fair and impartial decisions if they are not influenced by external factors, particularly the fear of retaliation.

The enactment of the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act in 2022 was a positive development. However, with more than half of federal judges still likely exposed online, especially on people search sites, it is evident that significant progress remains to be made.

By highlighting the extent to which federal judges are exposed on the internet and bringing this issue to public attention, we aim to create an impetus for the necessary actions to safeguard the personal information of federal officers.

Methodology

In order to investigate what personal data concerning US judges is available online, we collected a sample of 270 judges on January 6, 2025, focusing on judges from the US Circuit Courts of Appeals. To find out how much information is accessible, we searched over 50 people search websites using publicly available details for each judge.

For this study, we chose 75% as the match probability at which we deemed a judge discoverable on people search sites. For every individual data point we used to query the PSS—name, surname, age, city, and state of residence—a match ranking in the range 1–100 was assigned. In cases where personal details were found to be a partial match, such as a slight difference in age or spelling variations, the match ranking for that data point fell below 100. The algorithm then determined a match ranking for every data point based on the magnitude of the difference between a query and its potential match. The match rankings for every data point were then averaged and presented as an overall match ranking, expressed as a percentage.

For background and context, especially from the judges’ point of view, Incogni researchers used findings described by McDermot, Murphy, Grimes, and Muffler.¹ Their research surveyed 398 judges from various courts, spanning 48 states, and offers insights outside of what we referenced above.

Note on data:

The visual entitled “How concerned judges are about their safety (by gender)” (based on McDermott et al.) includes a category called “all judges who agree.” This group consists of judges who either did not disclose their gender or identified outside the male/female binary.

Because of this, the overall “all judges” percentage is not simply the average of the male and female groups. This can lead to unintuitive results, such as in responses to the statement about feeling threatened due to a past ruling.

Public data

Due to the nature of our research, for this particular study, we’ve decided to not share our research materials.

Sources

1. McDermott, Christine M., Evan Murphy, Patrick Grimes, and John Muffler. “Perceptions and Experiences with Judicial Security Threats: A Survey of US State Court Judges.” Ct. Rev. 60 (2024): 102. Accessed January 6th, 2025. https://nationalcenterforstatecourts.app.box.com/v/AmJudgesCourtReviewArchive/file/1699377897310.
2. Congress.gov. “Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2021.” 117th Congress (2021-2022). H.R.4436. Accessed March 7, 2025. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4436. 

Tables

Table 1

Word-for-word descriptions as given in the original study1

1. I worry about the availability of personally identifiable information (e.g., home address) about myself and my family online

2. I worry about my safety because of my position as a judge

3. I have felt threatened because of a decision made in a case

4. It is becoming more dangerous to be a judge

5. I worry about the safety of my family because of my position as a judge

6. I feel that my courthouse building is safe

7. I would have security concerns if I had to oversee an election law case