A lawsuit contends that a newly enacted California measure designed to shield immigration service providers is overly broad and vague.
Conservative YouTuber Nick Shirley has broadened his anti-fraud crusade to California, but a recently enacted law, hailed by conservatives as the “Stop Nick Shirley Act,” could derail him, according to his assertions. Shirley has now mounted a challenge to it in federal court.
In a recent YouTube video, Shirley contends that the measure blatantly violates the First Amendment and was crafted in response to his exposure of fraud across California. In his lawsuit, he also claims that it discriminates based on the content and viewpoint of speech and is constitutionally “overbroad and vague.”
Assembly Bill 2624, authored by state Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D–Oakland), wife of Attorney General Rob Bonta—a detail Shirley emphasizes—permits immigration-support services providers, employees, and volunteers who are “fearful for their safety or the safety of their family because of their affiliation with a designated immigration support services facility” to enroll in California’s Safe at Home Program. This program grants participants a substitute mailing address for government records, keeping their school, work, and residential addresses confidential.
The measure also bars online disclosures of personal information or images “with the specific intent” to either “incite a third person to cause imminent great bodily harm” or threaten an immigration-support worker protected by the statute or “a coresident of that person.” Violators can face penalties of at least $4,000, court orders restricting publication, and coverage of plaintiffs’ court costs and attorney’s fees. A separate provision also makes criminal posts that carry the specific intent that another person imminently use them to commit a likely act or threat of violence.
The law, set to take effect on October 1, 2027, was signed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom last month. The California Legislature contends it is a necessary safeguard to shield immigrant communities from rising incidents of doxxing and harassment linked to the Trump administration’s anti-immigration agenda. Yet, several free-speech groups are voicing constitutional concerns about its validity.
In April, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) warned that the bill could limit “what ordinary people are allowed to post online about immigrants and the individuals who assist them.” Specifically, under section 6218.19, which FIRE labeled “the bill’s most troubling provision,” immigration service providers could “ban nearly anyone from posting their personal information on the internet.” As FIRE noted, “personal information” under the bill could encompass “anything that relates to” them.
Posts could be prohibited regardless of whether they are protected by the First Amendment—they need not incite threats or harassment, nor relate to immigration. “That means the provision could enable censorship of all kinds of speech the Constitution protects,” FIRE warned.
The measure was amended before passage, with much of 6218.19 narrowed to forbid posting a person’s information only when done with the specific intent to threaten or incite violence against them. Still, the group cautioned that the revised version “could still chill lawful, constitutionally protected speech about immigrants and immigration service providers.”
“The law could also be abused in practice through frivolous demands to take down speech that doesn’t actually meet the bar for incitement or threats,” FIRE added.
A.B. 2624 is not the first well-intentioned law to raise First Amendment concerns. In 2025, California extended similar protections for reproductive healthcare providers to gender-affirming healthcare providers and patients.
In 2020, New Jersey enacted Daniel’s Law, which prohibits the disclosure of home addresses and private telephone numbers of judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement officers. This law has chilled free speech, including the moment it prevented journalist Charlie Kratovil from publishing the address of a police chief, which he obtained through a public records request. Kratovil’s sole aim was to document that the chief resided two hours outside the city he served. A New Jersey appellate court ruled that although the chief’s Cape May residency raised a public concern, the exact street address did not, and protecting public officials from harassment is a “compelling State interest of the highest order.” The state Supreme Court later determined that the address did involve public concern but upheld the constitutionality of Daniel’s Law.
Meanwhile, in January, Illinois’ Public Official Safety and Privacy Act went into effect, enacting similar provisions to Daniel’s Law for current and former General Assembly members, constitutional officers, state attorneys, public defenders, and county clerks. “While I don’t believe the intent of lawmakers is to suppress news or criticism, the law is highly susceptible to abuse for those purposes,” Carolyn Iodice, FIRE’s legislative and policy director, told the Chicago Tribune.
Shirley’s commentary and style may not appeal to everyone, but the YouTuber may have a point: California’s laws appear to curb free speech. This isn’t a problem limited to California, and it should concern all Americans who care about limiting government overreach.
