Federal filings may have to redact the whole Social Security number.

The last four digits of a Social Security number could no longer remain visible in a public federal civil or criminal filing under amendments released August 14, 2026. The proposal would require complete redaction instead.

Current rules permit a filer to disclose the final four digits. Civil Rule 5.2 also permits the year of an individual's birth, a minor's initials, and the final four digits of a financial account number. Criminal Rule 49.1 permits the same information, plus the city and state of a home address.

The privacy rules took effect December 1, 2007, in response to the E-Government Act of 2002. They appear in Appellate Rule 25(a)(5), Bankruptcy Rule 9037, Civil Rule 5.2, and Criminal Rule 49.1.

Civil and criminal filings would require complete redaction

According to the Standing Committee's September 2026 report, the proposed changes to Criminal Rule 49.1 would require complete redaction of Social Security numbers and individual taxpayer identification numbers. They would also expand the covered information to include employer identification numbers.

The proposed Civil Rule 5.2 amendments are generally consistent with those changes. They would require complete redaction of Social Security numbers, individual taxpayer identification numbers, employer identification numbers, and adoption taxpayer identification numbers.

That would end the last four digits convention for taxpayer identifying numbers in civil and criminal filings. Adding employer identification numbers would extend the rule's express coverage to business filings, not only filings concerning individuals.

Both rules would also state that the redaction requirements apply to exhibits and attachments. That includes documents a filer may not have drafted, such as bank records, medical records, tax records, contracts, and similar third-party material.

The proposed Civil Rule 5.2 committee note preserves two existing features. Exemptions from the redaction requirement would remain unchanged. So would any additional redactions required under a protective order.

The amendments would also replace minors' initials with pseudonyms. Under the civil proposal, the requirement would apply when a filed document refers to a person who is a minor at the time of filing. The criminal proposal would make the corresponding change in public criminal filings.

Bankruptcy would retain different treatment for taxpayer numbers

Proposed Bankruptcy Rule 9037 shares two features with the civil and criminal amendments. It would expressly apply the redaction obligation to attachments, exhibits, and all other documents in a court filing. It would also require pseudonyms for minors.

It would not require complete redaction of taxpayer identifying information. It also would not extend the redaction requirement to employer identification numbers.

The Standing Committee attributed that difference to the context of bankruptcy proceedings and practice. If the package is adopted as published, a taxpayer identifying number could be treated differently in a bankruptcy filing than in a civil or criminal filing.

The distinction would require attention to the governing rule. The exhibit and pseudonym provisions would extend across bankruptcy, civil, and criminal matters, but the proposed treatment of taxpayer identifying numbers would not be uniform.

The pseudonym proposal began with a Justice Department letter

The pseudonym change originated in a March 7, 2024 letter from the Justice Department's Criminal Division to Judge James C. Dever III, then chair of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules. Acting Assistant Attorney General Nicole M. Argentieri signed it.

The letter proposed replacing the reference to "the minor's initials" in Criminal Rule 49.1(a) with a pseudonym. It said initials may provide insufficient privacy and safety for child victims and witnesses, particularly in cases involving the sexual exploitation of a child.

According to the letter, Project Safe Childhood prosecutors and victim witness personnel know that some child-exploitation offenders track federal criminal filings and take other measures to identify, contact, and harass child victims.

The department also cited the 2022 Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance. Those guidelines direct that a child's name or other identifying information, other than a pseudonym, not appear in court documents or other public records unless otherwise required by law.

The letter noted that federal courts have used pseudonyms for minors, including inParoline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434, 439 (2014). It also said a defendant's right to know a minor's actual identity could be protected through sealed filings while public filings use the pseudonym.

A 2024 study found 22,391 unredacted numbers

The Federal Judicial Center published a study of unredacted Social Security numbers in public court documents in April 2024. Kristin A. Garri, Roy Germano, Jason A. Cantone, and Jana Laks prepared it at the request of the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management.

The researchers examined every publicly available PACER document filed on 37 randomly selected days in 2022. The dataset contained 4,681,055 documents from federal district, bankruptcy, and appellate courts, along with bankruptcy proof of claim registers.

The study identified 22,391 unredacted Social Security numbers belonging to approximately 8,300 people. Its use of Social Security numbers included individual taxpayer identification numbers.

Of the nearly 4.7 million documents, 4,525 contained at least one unredacted number. That was 0.10 percent of the documents reviewed. The rates were 0.12 percent in district courts, 0.07 percent in bankruptcy courts, and 0.17 percent in courts of appeals.

The affected documents appeared in 3,901 docket entries from 3,521 cases. The results were concentrated. Forty-five percent of the unredacted numbers appeared in 17 documents.

The study classified 72 percent of the numbers as apparently noncompliant with the privacy rules. Another 22 percent appeared exempt. Six percent belonged to pro se parties who waived the privacy protections by placing their own numbers in unsealed documents.

The study provides empirical context, not a stated cause of the amendments. The judiciary's proposed 2026 privacy report to Congress discusses recent Federal Judicial Center studies, the proposed amendments, and ongoing privacy work. The biennial report covers June 2024 through June 2026, as required by the E-Government Act.

Current filing rules remain in force through the comment process

The Standing Committee unanimously approved publication of the privacy amendments after meeting June 3 and 4, 2026. The Civil, Bankruptcy, and Criminal Advisory Committees had considered them during April 2026 meetings.

Comments may be submitted electronically through regulations.gov until February 15, 2027. Separate dockets cover the Appellate, Bankruptcy, Civil, Criminal, and Evidence amendments. Requests to testify at a public hearing are due December 8, 2026.

Virtual hearings are scheduled for January 8, 2027 for Bankruptcy Rules, January 11 for Evidence Rules, January 13 for Civil Rules, January 20 for Criminal Rules, and January 25 for Appellate Rules. Each committee reserved a second date if needed.

After comment, an advisory committee may revise, discard, or transmit an amendment. Further review would follow through the Standing Committee, Judicial Conference, and Supreme Court, with Congress retaining authority to reject, modify, or defer pending rules.

Because comments close in February 2027, the ordinary timetable would permit an effective date no earlier than December 1, 2028. That date is not certain, and any proposal may change or be dropped.

Three consequences for practicing attorneys

The proposals reach what may stay visible, where the duty runs, and which rule set applies.