WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HSB 564

A bill for an act relating to the safety of persons in certain professions involved with the judicial system, including authorizing a judicial officer, attorney general, deputy attorney general, or assistant attorney general to be issued a professional permit to carry weapons, and establishing the criminal offenses of threatening and the malicious sharing of personal information of a judicial officer or a judicial officer’s immediate family, and providing penalties.

2025-2026 Regular Session

Iowa bill creates criminal penalties for threatening judicial officers/families and sharing their personal info, while authorizing judges and prosecutors to carry weapons via professional permits.

Committee report approving bill, renumbered as HF 2533.
#attorneygeneral #criminallaw #deputyofficers #emergencymedicalcare #families #felonies #judgesandcourtofficials #judicialbranch #lawenforcementofficers #personalinformation #professions #safety #threats #weapons
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HSB 564

Legislative bill overview

HSB 564 creates two new criminal offenses in Iowa: threatening a judicial officer or their family members, and maliciously sharing their personal information. The bill also establishes a professional permit system allowing judges, attorneys general, and their deputies to carry weapons for personal security.

Why is this important

Judicial officers and prosecutors have faced increasing threats and harassment in recent years, which can compromise their ability to perform their duties impartially and safely. The bill addresses legitimate security concerns while creating legal consequences for those who intimidate court officials through threats or doxxing (sharing personal information).

Potential points of contention

  • Second Amendment balance: The professional permit system for carrying weapons may raise questions about whether it creates special privileges for certain professionals or if eligibility standards are appropriately defined
  • Free speech concerns: The new "threatening" offense must be narrowly tailored to avoid chilling protected political speech or legitimate criticism of judicial decisions
  • Definition and scope: What constitutes "malicious sharing of personal information" needs clarity—will routine public records or incidental mentions trigger criminal liability, and how does this apply to media reporting or public advocacy?

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.