Nick Shirley Files Lawsuit Against California Officials
Conservative YouTuber and citizen journalist Nick Shirley has taken legal action against key California officials in Sacramento in an attempt to halt a contentious law, which is being referred to by some as the “Stop Nick Shirley Act.”
“It has just begun, this may take months or years but it must be done. The people deserve the right to post whenever they want especially when it’s our tax dollars paying for it,” he shared on X.
The lawsuit specifically targets Assembly Bill 2624, a bill recently signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom. This measure broadens California’s Safe at Home program.
Shirley, represented by attorney John W. Howard from San Diego and the conservative advocacy group America First Legal, claims the law unconstitutionally limits First Amendment rights. He argues it puts independent journalists at risk of civil liability when they publish truthful, publicly sourced information while probing into government-funded immigration support providers.
The controversy revolves around AB 2624, written by Democrat Assemblymember Mia Bonta, which allows those providing immigration-related services—like legal advice, healthcare, and referrals—to join an “address-confidentiality program.”
According to the law, individuals or organizations covered can issue written demands to remove or prevent the online release of their personal or business information if published with ill intent or without consent.
The defendants named in the lawsuit include California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber. The legal argument posits that the law serves as an unconstitutional restriction based on content and viewpoint, effectively discouraging legitimate investigative journalism looking into possible fraud in taxpayer-funded non-profits.
The conflict escalated after Shirley’s undercover reporting style made its way to California earlier this year. He gained national attention for his investigations into fraud at Somali-operated daycare facilities in Minnesota. After he came to California to investigate similar operations, state officials criticized the activities of “external provocateurs,” which prompted Assemblymember Bonta to propose this privacy measure.
While proponents of the bill—including its author—assert that it aims to shield service providers from harassment and threats, Republican lawmakers quickly sided with Shirley, coining the term “Stop Nick Shirley Act” and joining him in rallies at the state Capitol.
In the federal lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Shirley’s team argues that the vague and broad language of the law puts journalists in a precarious situation. They emphasize that a simple written demand could expose reporters to legal action or monetary damages, forcing them to censor their reporting about public oversight.
Moreover, the lawsuit claims the statute is plagued by “constitutional overbreadth, vague standards, and ex post facto issues” concerning videos already published online.
Shirley’s legal team is seeking both preliminary and permanent injunctions, aiming to invalidate parts of the law before its scheduled enactment. They assert that the ability to expose fraud in public programs is a fundamental democratic function safeguarded by the Constitution.
