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.
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.
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.
A Southern District of California order dated 14 September 2026 approved a $175,000 settlement in S.E. v. Grey, vacated the May 2025 preliminary injunction, and dismissed the case with prejudice — after Encinitas Union School District had already rewritten notice-and-opt-out rules in the shadow of Mahmoud v. Taylor.
On 2 March 2026 the Supreme Court vacated a Ninth Circuit stay as to parents in Mirabelli v. Bonta — Free Exercise and Due Process parental-rights theories. Emphasize: interim emergency relief, not a final nationwide ban on all student-privacy policies.
California’s SAFETY Act (AB 1955) still forbids districts from requiring parental disclosure of a pupil’s SOGI without pupil consent. After Mirabelli, the Ninth Circuit (18 Jun 2026) entered a limited injunction covering named parent plaintiffs only — not a statewide strike-down.
