Independent journalist Nick Shirley has sued California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber in a federal court in an attempt to prevent the enforcement of a law that his complaint says is unconstitutional, and that opponents have dubbed the “Stop Nick Shirley Act.”
We obtained a copy of the complaint for you here.
Shirley went to the US District Court for the Eastern District of California on September 4, ahead of the law taking effect on October 1, 2027, to ask a judge to declare parts of it unconstitutional and stop the defendants from enforcing those provisions.
The journalist’s lawsuit says that the law, AB 2624, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on August 22, violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as the Constitution’s ban on state ex post facto laws.
AB 2624 is an extension of California’s address-confidentiality program, and it adds people who provide, assist with, or receive designated immigration-support services to those who can use the program to keep their home addresses secret. Those services are defined broadly and include legal help, advocacy, case management, humanitarian relief, referrals, translation, counseling and health care.
Shirley said in his complaint that he will continue investigating and reporting on government spending, fraud, and organizations that provide immigration services in California, and that this may include names, employment information, photographs, and video of people protected by the new law.
“That uncertainty extends to speech he has already published, as Mr. Shirley cannot determine whether AB 2624 exposes him to liability for information he previously disseminated,” the complaint states.
Shirley’s First Amendment claim is that while AB 2624 protects those involved with immigration-support services, those who work or volunteer for organizations that favor stricter immigration enforcement or oppose illegal immigration do not get the same protection for their personal information. According to Shirley, this is clear content and viewpoint discrimination.
The complaint states that the plaintiff is under pressure to publish reports and updates to his prior work in order to keep his audience informed. It notes that the law’s definition of an image includes video footage, while personal information is defined to include a person’s name and employment history, which can be protected for up to four years through a written demand by a protected participant.
The intent behind publishing the information must be to incite imminent serious violence likely to occur, or to make a true threat that would cause an objectively reasonable person to fear for their safety or that of their family. Shirley argues that the law’s breadth and uncertainty can still chill lawful speech and may also apply to material he published before the law came into force.
Shirley asked the court to declare the challenged provisions unconstitutional and issue preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing the defendants from enforcing Government Code Sections 6218.18 through 6218.21 against him or anyone else. He also requested fees and costs.
