Journalist Nick Shirley Sues California Over AB 2624, Dubbed 'Stop Nick Shirley Act'

Independent journalist Nick Shirley filed a federal lawsuit on September 4, 2026, against California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber, challenging Assembly Bill 2624—colloquially known as the 'Stop Nick Shirley Act'—as a violation of the First Amendment. The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Shirley's behalf by America First Legal and attorney John W. Howard, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief but no monetary damages.

AB 2624, signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom on August 22, 2026, expands California's Safe at Home address confidentiality program to immigration support service providers, their employees, and volunteers. Participants can obtain substitute addresses and issue written demands to block the public posting of their personal information or images online if done with intent to incite violence or threats. The law takes effect October 1, 2027, and does not create new penalties but extends existing frameworks.[1][2]

Shirley, known for videos alleging fraud in taxpayer-funded immigrant services and nonprofits in California and Minnesota, argues the measure was crafted in response to his investigations and effectively shields organizations from scrutiny. Critics, including Republican lawmakers, contend it creates a protected class that hinders transparency on public funds. Supporters, including bill author Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D), maintain it protects workers from documented harassment without restricting legitimate journalism, noting press shield laws and intent requirements remain in place.[3][4]

The complaint alleges content-based and viewpoint-discriminatory restrictions on speech, overbreadth, vagueness, and ex post facto concerns. It names the timing—following Shirley's January 2026 announcements of California probes—as evidence of targeting. No mainstream news outlets have opposed the bill, though fact-checkers like Snopes have rated claims of it 'criminalizing journalism' as false based on the text.[5]