Conservative YouTuber sues to block California immigration-services privacy law

A conservative YouTuber has sued to block a California law that Republican lawmakers have dubbed the "Stop Nick Shirley Act."

Attorneys for Nicholas "Nick" Shirley filed the lawsuit Friday in federal court in Sacramento, challenging AB 2624, which restricts the publication of certain personal information about people who provide immigration-related services.

Shirley, represented by San Diego attorney John W. Howard and attorneys from the America First Legal Foundation, argued the measure violates the First Amendment and threatens investigative journalism by potentially imposing liability for publishing truthful information obtained from public sources.

"The First Amendment does not allow the government to silence truthful reporting... Yet that is precisely what AB 2624 threatens to do," Howard wrote in the complaint. "The law imposes civil liability for publishing, disclosing, or trading certain personal information concerning providers of immigration-related services--even when that information is lawfully obtained and published as part of reporting on matters of public concern."

Shirley gained national attention for YouTube reports claiming that Somali-owned day care centers in Minnesota were defrauding government assistance programs. At least one of the operators of those centers was later charged by authorities.

The California lawsuit names Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber as defendants. AB 2624 was authored by Assemblymember Mia Bonta, D-Oakland, the attorney general's wife. She was elected to the Assembly seat he previously held after Gov. Gavin Newsom appointed him attorney general. Her office did not respond to a request for comment.

The case is Shirley v. Bonta, 2:26-at-01477 (E.D. Cal., filed Sept. 4, 2026).

Newsom signed AB 2624 on Aug. 22, and it is scheduled to take effect Oct. 1, 2027. The law creates protections for people who provide immigration-related services, including legal assistance, referrals, translation, counseling, and health care. Among other provisions, it restricts certain online publication or distribution of personal information when done with the specific intent to incite imminent violence or threaten a protected person.

Republicans in the California Legislature drew attention to the measure by labeling it the "Stop Nick Shirley Act," though Mia Bonta has repeatedly said the law was neither inspired by nor aimed at Shirley.

Several GOP leaders appeared with Shirley at an Aug. 26 rally outside the state Capitol. This included attorney general candidate Michael Gates, who told the crowd he would not enforce the law if elected.

"It is no surprise that this law is now being challenged in court by Nick Shirley. In America, we have freedom of speech and freedom of the press," Sen. Tony Strickland, R-Huntington Beach, one of the organizers of the rally, said in an email Friday. "Every citizen should have the right to know how their money is being spent, and it should never be a crime for those who uncover fraud to ask questions and report what they find."

AB 2624 builds on an existing law, the Safe at Home Act, which allows victims of domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault to hide their addresses. Shirley contended those restrictions go too far and could expose journalists to civil or criminal liability for publishing truthful information obtained from public sources.

The lawsuit alleges the statute is unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to Shirley. It also claims AB 2624 imposes content- and viewpoint-based restrictions on speech and is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. Amendments added in May specify that the law requires "specific intent that another person imminently use that information to commit a crime involving violence or a threat of violence."

Shirley raises an additional challenge based on previously published material, arguing the statute could operate as an unconstitutional ex post facto law if liability attaches to information posted before AB 2624 takes effect but that remains available online afterward.

The complaint also argues the law discriminates based on viewpoint because it protects people who provide immigration-support services without imposing comparable restrictions on the publication of information about people involved in immigration enforcement. He asked the court to declare portions of AB 2624 unconstitutional and issue preliminary and permanent injunctions blocking their enforcement.