The “Stop Nick Shirley Act” heads to federal court
California’s new immigration-worker privacy law was written after a viral fraud hunter showed up. FIRE warned it chills speech. Shirley’s lawyers say that’s the point.
Why this lean: Lean right (+50): frames AB 2624 as speech-chilling for immigration investigative reporting. Plaintiff theory is foregrounded; California’s privacy/anti-harassment rationale is acknowledged as the state’s stated purpose.
Lean score (−100 far left to +100 far right; 0 = centre) reflects how this article frames the issue — language emphasis and narrative tilt — not a verdict on truth. Data-first pieces with balanced sources trend toward centre. Disclosed for transparency; not a ranking of correctness.
Lean score (−100 far left to +100 far right; 0 = centre) reflects how this article frames the issue — language emphasis and narrative tilt — not a verdict on truth. Data-first pieces with balanced sources trend toward centre. Disclosed for transparency; not a ranking of correctness.
California State Capitol, Sacramento. Photo: Alex Proimos, CC BY 2.0
Independent journalist Nick Shirley and America First Legal sued California on 4 September 2026 in the Eastern District of California to block enforcement of AB 2624 — the statute critics nickname the “Stop Nick Shirley Act.” Governor signing was 22 August 2026; the law is set to become operative 1 October 2027.
AB 2624 expands Safe-at-Home-style protections and civil liability around posting “personal information” about immigration-support providers. Defendants named in AFL materials include Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber. Reason’s 14 September analysis argued the statute is yet another anti-doxxing frame that still chills investigative reporting; FIRE had previously warned of speech chill even after “specific intent” amendments.
When a privacy bill is timed to a viral investigator, courts — not press releases — decide if viewpoint discrimination is baked in.
Source mix: AFL’s complaint and PR state the plaintiff’s theory; Reason and USA Today / Bloomberg Law coverage corroborate the filing and the statute’s timeline. Quote the bill text for operative definitions — do not treat partisan framing as the statute itself. Merits are unproven; the free-speech chill claim is what the lawsuit asks a court to test.
Citizen angle: investigative reporting on public-facing immigration contractors and NGOs is a classic accountability beat. Lawmakers can protect victims of true doxxing without drafting liability that critics say singles out disfavoured speakers. Shirley’s profile is partisan-adjacent; the First Amendment question is not.
Bottom line: Watch for TRO/PI briefing schedules in E.D. Cal. and whether California defends AB 2624 as neutral privacy or as a content-targeted response to one journalist’s methods.
The Justice Department announced on 19 October that 28 lawful permanent residents in California have been charged in “Operation Protect the Vote.” Eleven were arrested. Charges include false statements in naturalization applications and fraudulent voter registration (felonies, up to five years) and, in the Eastern District, misdemeanour voting by an alien. DOJ says every defendant appears on the list of more than 20,000 likely noncitizen registrants it gave California. The same day, it asked a court for a temporary restraining order (TRO).
In United States v. California, No. 2:26-cv-12025 (C.D. Cal., filed 15 October 2026), the Justice Department asks a federal court to stop California from tabulating federal vote-by-mail ballots from people on a federal list of more than 20,000 likely noncitizens until citizenship is verified. The complaint cites 18 U.S.C. § 611 and California’s practice of mailing ballots to every registered voter. Update 28 October: Judge Carter denied DOJ’s TRO application (Dkt. 149). Update 29 October: special master appointed and 13 November evidentiary hearing set (Dkt. 159); Santa Clara County refused a parallel 902-name demand. Update 30 October: Ninth Circuit panel denied DOJ’s emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal, 2–1.
Benita Pedersen faces days of AHRC hearings over a 2023 flyer opposing a rainbow crosswalk. JCCF is defending; Rebel News is pushing a Scrap Section 3 campaign with a Hwy 2 billboard and a UCP convention petition.
On 30 September 2026 Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. vacated the USCIS, CBP, and State Department policies that collected the $100,000 H-1B payment and barred those agencies from enforcing them until they finish notice-and-comment rulemaking and a regulatory-flexibility analysis. The order does not strike Presidential Proclamation 10973 itself. A Massachusetts court had already vacated the same policies; a D.C. court went the other way.
