SB 82: Courts: judges; personal information and physical safety protections for judges, their families, and household members; enhance. Creates new act. - Michigan

Substitute (S-1) - 2 → Substitute (S-2) - 3 · 3 edits

MINOR

The bill was renumbered from Substitute S-1 to S-2, indicating a revision in the legislative process. The most significant substantive change is the narrowing of the definition of 'other property' that can be publicly posted; it now specifically excludes real property used as a dwelling or for recreation by judges and their families, whereas the previous version broadly included 'other property owned.' The list of personal identifying information was renumbered to accommodate this change, but the types of data protected remain consistent.

Scope change

The scope of protected property was narrowed to exclude real estate used as a home or recreational property for judges and their families, while the scope of protected personal data (like phone numbers and social security numbers) remains the same.

DEFINITION

The definition of 'other property owned' was changed to specifically include only 'real property owned and regularly used as a dwelling or for recreation by a judge or a judge's immediate family member,' removing the broader category of all other property.

TECHNICAL

The numbering of the list of personal identifying information was adjusted (items iii through xiii were renumbered to iii through xiii) to align with the removal of the previous item regarding 'other property owned.'

The bill version identifier was updated from 'S-1' to 'S-2' and the tracking code was changed from 'eszxct' to 'qin9dj'.

Substitute (S-2) - 2 → Substitute (S-1) - 2 · 3 edits

MINOR

The bill was renumbered from Substitute (S-2) to Substitute (S-1), indicating a revision in the legislative process. The scope of protected personal information was expanded to include tax identification numbers and financial card details, while specific details about real property, vehicles, schools, and employment locations were removed from the list. The definition of a 'public body' was updated to include any other state or local authority not previously listed, but explicitly excludes the judiciary and county clerks.

Scope change

The bill's scope of protected personal information was broadened to cover new financial identifiers, while the scope of specific location-based protections was narrowed by removing detailed requirements for real estate, vehicles, and employment routes.

DEFINITION

The list of protected personal identifying information was modified; specific details regarding real property, vehicles, schools, and employment locations were removed, while tax identification numbers and personal credit/debit card information were added.

The definition of 'public body' was modified to include a catch-all clause for any other state or local authority, while explicitly confirming that the judiciary and county clerks are excluded from this definition.

TECHNICAL

The bill version number was changed from Substitute (S-2) to Substitute (S-1), reflecting a procedural update in the legislative history.

Substitute (S-1) → Substitute (S-2) · 3 edits

MINOR

The bill was amended to narrow the scope of personal information that must be publicly disclosed for judges and their families. Specifically, the requirement to list all real property owned was removed and replaced with a restriction that only applies to property used as a home or for recreation. Other sensitive data, such as bank accounts and vehicle information, remains subject to public disclosure.

Scope change

The bill's scope was narrowed regarding real estate disclosure, limiting public access to property details only when the property serves as a residence or recreational site for the judge or family.

REQUIREMENT

Replaced a blanket requirement to disclose all property addresses with a specific requirement to disclose only real property used as a dwelling or for recreation.

Deleted the mandate to publicly list the address of any other property owned by the judge or their family.

Reordered the list of required personal identifiers, moving tax ID and credit card information to appear earlier in the disclosure list.

Substitute (H-3) - 2 → Substitute (S-1) · 11 edits

MAJOR

The bill was revised to broaden the definition of protected personal information by adding tax IDs and financial card details, while removing specific protections for real estate and vehicle data. This change narrows the scope of information judges can request to be kept private, shifting the focus from physical assets and transportation to purely financial and tax identifiers.

Scope change

The scope of protected information was narrowed by removing protections for real property, vehicles, schools, and employment locations, while expanding protections to include federal/state tax IDs and personal credit/debit card information.

REQUIREMENT

Removed protection for the address of other real property owned by a judge or their family.

Removed protection for home or cellular telephone numbers.

Removed protection for Social Security numbers.

Removed protection for personal email addresses.

Added protection for federal or state tax identification numbers.

Added protection for personal credit, charge, or debit card information.

Removed protection for bank account information, including account or PIN numbers.

Removed protection for license plate numbers or other unique vehicle identifiers.

Removed protection for current or future school or day-care information.

Removed protection for employment location information, including employer names and routes to work.

DEFINITION

Reordered the list of protected information items, moving bank and vehicle details to the end of the list and adding new financial categories in the middle.

Substitute (H-5) → Substitute (H-3) - 2 · 1 edit

MINOR

The bill text was updated from version H-5 to version H-3, which includes a specific policy change to the privacy rules for judges. The amendment now requires the disclosure of an employer's name or address when reporting a judge's employment location, whereas the previous version only required the address of the employer. This change expands the amount of information that must be publicly disclosed about judges' work arrangements.

Scope change

The bill's scope regarding public transparency for judicial employment information was broadened to include the employer's name or address.

REQUIREMENT

The requirement for disclosing a judge's employment location was updated to explicitly include the name or address of the employer, in addition to the previously required address.

Substitute (H-3) → Substitute (H-5) · 2 edits

MINOR

The bill was revised to remove the requirement for disclosing a judge's employer name, while retaining the need to report the employer's address, work schedules, and travel routes. This change narrows the scope of required public information regarding judges' employment details, likely to reduce privacy intrusion while still maintaining transparency about where and when judges work.

Scope change

The bill's scope regarding required disclosures for judges was narrowed by removing the mandate to publish the specific name of the employer.

REQUIREMENT

Removed the requirement to disclose the name of a judge's employer.

Modified the disclosure requirement to keep the employer's address, employment schedules, and routes taken to or from work.

As Passed by the House → Substitute (H-3) · 3 edits

MINOR

The bill underwent minor technical formatting adjustments and a specific clarification to the definition of protected information for judges. The most significant substantive change is the addition of 'name' to the list of details that cannot be disclosed regarding a judge's employer, broadening the privacy protections for judicial employment information.

Scope change

The scope of the bill remains focused on judicial protection and privacy, with no changes to its overall applicability or jurisdiction.

DEFINITION

The definition of protected information for judges was expanded to explicitly include the 'name' of the employer, in addition to the address, schedules, and routes previously listed.

TECHNICAL

The bill's title page was reformatted to reflect the House Substitute version (H-3) instead of the original House passage version (H-5), and page numbering was adjusted accordingly.

Minor spacing and line break adjustments were made throughout the text to align with the new formatting standards.

As Passed by the Senate → As Passed by the House · 4 edits · Dec 16, 2025

MODERATE

The House version significantly expanded the definition of 'immediate family member' to include parents and other relatives, broadened the definition of 'judge' to include tribal court judges, and added a new provision allowing the State Court Administrative Office to submit protection requests on behalf of judges. These changes aim to provide more comprehensive privacy protection for a wider circle of individuals associated with judges.

Scope change

The bill's scope was expanded to include tribal court judges and to extend family protection to parents and other relatives, not just spouses and children.

ELIGIBILITY

Expanded the definition of 'immediate family member' to include the judge's parent and any other familial relative, whereas the Senate version only covered spouses and children.

Added 'judge serving on a tribal court' to the definition of who is protected under the act.

REQUIREMENT

Added a new subsection allowing the State Court Administrative Office to submit written requests to protect information on behalf of a judge if delegated authority.

DEFINITION

Reformatted the list of protected personal identifying information to ensure all items (including tax IDs, bank info, and vehicle details) are clearly included.

Senate Introduced Bill → As Passed by the Senate · 6 edits · Mar 19, 2025

MODERATE

The bill was reformatted from a draft introduction to a formal Senate substitute, standardizing the text and removing page markers. Substantively, the definitions of 'immediate family' were expanded to include any familial relative, and the list of protected personal information was updated to include modern data types like email addresses and digital payment details. The act also added specific exemptions for consumer reporting agencies and security firms, while establishing a clear 5-day deadline for removing posted information and outlining civil penalties for non-compliance.

Scope change

The bill's scope was expanded to cover a broader range of family members and modern digital identifiers, while clarifying exemptions for certain commercial and security-related uses of data.

DEFINITION

The definition of 'immediate family member' was broadened from specific relatives (spouse, child, parent) to include 'any other familial relative' of a judge.

The list of protected 'personal identifying information' was updated to include email addresses, tax IDs, digital card info, and vehicle license plates, replacing older or less relevant examples.

REQUIREMENT

A specific 5-business-day deadline was added for public bodies and individuals to remove posted identifying information after receiving a removal request.

ENFORCEMENT

New provisions allow judges or family members to sue for injunctive relief without posting security bonds and mandate that violators pay court costs and attorney fees.

EXEMPTIONS

New exemptions were added for consumer reporting agencies, security incident response, and real-time alert services for health or safety purposes.

TECHNICAL

The document structure was converted from a draft introduction with page numbers to a formal legislative substitute with standardized formatting.

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

What changed between versions

How they voted

Actions timeline

Sponsors