YouTuber Nick Shirley Sues California Over ‘Stop Nick Shirley Act’ Privacy Law

YouTuber and independent journalist Nick Shirley filed a federal lawsuit against California on September 4, 2026, challenging Assembly Bill 2624 (AB 2624), a privacy law widely nicknamed the ‘Stop Nick Shirley Act.’ The lawsuit, filed in Sacramento federal court, seeks to block the law before it takes effect on October 1, 2027, arguing it infringes on free speech rights by imposing a viewpoint-based restriction on information related to immigration support organizations.

What AB 2624 Changes and Why It Matters

Signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on August 22, 2026, AB 2624 expands California’s Safe at Home program, which has protected survivors of domestic violence, stalking, and other vulnerable groups since 1998. The new law adds employees, volunteers, and board members of designated immigration support services to the program, allowing them to keep their home addresses confidential in public records if they document threats or harassment linked to their work within the past year.

Under AB 2624, anyone who posts a covered person’s personal information — including addresses, phone numbers, employers, or financial details — with intent related to violence or intimidation faces a minimum $4,000 penalty, potentially tripled based on actual damages, plus attorney fees. This legal shield primarily protects workers at immigrant-rights nonprofits like the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA), whose staff have reported severe harassment, including instances where strangers have appeared at family members’ homes.

Nick Shirley’s Legal Challenge and Arguments

Backed by America First Legal and represented by San Diego attorney John Howard, Shirley’s complaint names California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber as defendants. The suit raises three constitutional claims: violation of the First Amendment’s free speech protections, Fourteenth Amendment due process concerns, and the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws.

Central to Shirley’s argument is that AB 2624 imposes a selective speech restriction favoring immigration aid organizations while leaving speech about immigration enforcement groups unprotected. Shirley states he does not seek monetary damages but wants the court to halt enforcement of what he calls a politically motivated law. In a video announcing the suit, Shirley said, “It’s time for We the People to do something,” emphasizing the broader implications beyond his personal case.

Legislative History and Controversy Over the Vote

AB 2624’s passage was marked by legislative complexity. The bill first passed the California Assembly on May 26, 2026, before undergoing Senate committee hearings and a full Senate vote. It returned to the Assembly for a concurrence vote on August 19, 2026, which officially sent it to Governor Newsom’s desk. The official concurrence vote was 59 in favor, 19 opposed, and one absent. Some media outlets reported conflicting vote counts from earlier stages, but the concurrence vote is the legally binding action.

Opponents like Shirley argue the bill is less about privacy and more about shielding certain political viewpoints from scrutiny, particularly those critical of immigration enforcement policies. Supporters contend the law is a necessary response to documented harassment and threats against immigrant-support workers, aiming to protect their safety and privacy.

Broader Impact on Immigration Advocacy and Free Speech

The outcome of Shirley’s lawsuit could have far-reaching consequences. The organizations protected under AB 2624, such as CHIRLA, serve predominantly Latino immigrant families and play a significant role in California’s immigration landscape. If the law stands, it would strengthen privacy protections for workers in these organizations, potentially reducing harassment but also limiting public access to some personal information.

Conversely, if the court blocks AB 2624, it may open the door to increased transparency but also possibly expose immigrant-support workers to greater risks of intimidation. The case embodies a central tension in U.S. politics today between privacy, safety, and free speech rights amid the ongoing immigration debate.

As the federal court considers Shirley’s challenge, California and immigrant advocacy groups await a ruling that could redefine privacy protections for a vulnerable workforce and shape the boundaries of political speech in the digital age.