ANALYSIS
All you need to know about America First Legal's lawsuit against California over ‘Stop Nick Shirley Act’
Shirley, who has published videos in which he follows workers at migrant-services organizations and alleges suspected fraud in California and Minnesota, contends that the law was born after he exposed an alleged widespread fraud in immigrant communities in both states.
Journalist Nick Shirley speaks during a panel discussion on Antifa
The litigation group America First Legal (AFL) has filed a federal lawsuit against the State of California on behalf of conservative independent journalist Nick Shirley. AFL seeks to block the enforcement of AB 2624, popularly known as the "Stop Nick Shirley Act."
Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 2624 in late August; the law takes effect on Oct. 1, 2027. It expands the state's Safe at Home program to include providers, employees and volunteers of immigration support services who document threats and register. Those who enroll receive an alternate mailing address in public records. Additionally, the law prohibits the publication of their personal information or image online with the intent to incite imminent serious harm or to create a reasonable fear for their safety.
Shirley, who has published videos in which he follows workers at migrant-services organizations and alleges suspected fraud in California and Minnesota, contends that the law was born after he exposed an alleged widespread fraud in immigrant communities in both states.
The lawsuit seeks a ruling that defines the extent to which California can restrict the publication of information about certain organizations without violating the First Amendment.
Why Shirley and America First Legal consider it unconstitutional
America First Legal (AFL), together with attorney John W. Howard, has filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California against Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber.
The central arguments of the lawsuit are:
- The statute is a content-based restriction on speech. Liability turns on whether the publication concerns a designated immigration support services provider or persons associated with such a provider.
- The statute discriminates on the basis of viewpoint. It especially protects information concerning “immigration support services,” while imposing no comparable restriction on speech concerning organizations or individuals whose advocacy favors stronger immigration enforcement. The statute’s legislative findings confirm that purpose by invoking “anti-immigrant” harassment and attributing it to “the current federal administration’s anti-immigration attitude and policies.”
- The statute is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. Its open-ended definitions cover a substantial amount of protected journalism, political commentary, watchdog reporting and whistleblowing, and fail to give speakers fair notice of what is prohibited.
- The statute is unnecessary to any legitimate interest in preventing harassment or violence.
Politics
Nick Shirley to tens of thousands in London: 'The ideas of freedom of speech are not dangerous'
Carlos Dominguez
What's at stake: Safety vs. Freedom of the press
California Republicans, including Assemblymember Carl DeMaio, have called for intervention by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and support Shirley's position, while Democrats and immigration advocacy groups defend the law as a necessary tool against harassment.
- In favor of the law: It is argued that workers at NGOs and immigration clinics face real risks of doxing, threats and violence, and that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting their safety and privacy.
- Opposed to the law: It is argued that the law creates a protected class based on support for immigrants and that, under the guise of security, it allows for the silencing of journalistic investigations into the use of public funds and possible irregularities within those organizations.
"Why create new laws that restrict the freedom of speech if you have nothing to hide? Now more than ever, the people deserve more transparency, not less. Freedom of speech is essential for a high-trust society," said Nick Shirley.
Nick Shirley: The independent journalist who sparked Democratic Ire
One of them, the Quality Learning Center, had a misspelled sign ("Learing") and had received millions in aid; it later closed. Minnesota authorities and local news reports questioned whether that was sufficient to prove fraud at those centers. However, his investigation was so impactful that it led him to testify before Congress and brought him enormous notoriety.
Today, Shirley continues his work to hold people accountable, investigating alleged abuses and irregularities in publicly funded immigration programs in California.
LATEST
