Investigative journalist Nick Shirley has sued California officials to block a new law restricting the publication of personal information tied to immigration-service organizations.
The lawsuit targets Assembly Bill 2624, known by critics as the “Stop Nick Shirley Act.” Shirley argues that the measure could expose him to civil lawsuits for publishing truthful information obtained through lawful reporting.
The case puts California’s privacy rules against claims of press freedom and viewpoint discrimination. USA Today reported on Shirley’s legal challenge as the dispute moved into federal court.
Shirley filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. California’s attorney general and secretary of state are named as defendants.
America First Legal represents Shirley in the case. The organization argues that AB 2624 threatens his continuing investigations and violates the First Amendment and other constitutional protections.
The law restricts public disclosure of certain information about people involved with designated immigration-support services. Covered information includes home addresses, phone numbers, employment history and financial data.
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the measure, which is scheduled to take effect in 2027. The law permits civil actions over covered disclosures, creating the prospect of private litigation against people who publish protected information.
The New York Post reported that America First Legal considers the law vague and potentially discriminatory against immigration critics. The group contends that comparable protections do not appear to cover organizations critical of immigration.
The lawsuit focuses on how the threat of civil liability could affect Shirley before any claim reaches a courtroom. America First Legal says uncertainty about the law’s reach could discourage constitutionally protected reporting.
The filing states:
“AB 2624 chills Mr. Shirley’s intended speech by creating uncertainty concerning whether his publication of truthful, lawfully obtained information about individuals associated with immigration-services organizations could subject him to civil liability.”
That argument places the law’s practical effect at the center of the case. Shirley does not have to face a completed civil judgment to claim that uncertainty is already affecting his intended speech.
The constitutional dispute also turns on which people and organizations receive protection. America First Legal argues that the law may favor one side of the immigration debate by shielding designated service groups without equivalent treatment for their critics.
The court has not resolved that argument. California officials will have an opportunity to defend the law and its distinctions as the case proceeds.
Shirley and Gene Hamilton discussed the legal action during Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle” on September 5, 2026. Fox News described the case as a direct challenge to AB 2624 involving politics, media and First Amendment concerns.
The “Stop Nick Shirley Act” label reflects the intensely personal framing surrounding the dispute. The formal legal questions, however, concern the law’s text, its reach and the civil exposure it creates.
Investigators and journalists often rely on names, work histories and other identifying information when tracing organizations and their operations. In this case, Shirley claims California’s restrictions could prevent him from publishing such material when it concerns covered immigration-service groups.
Authorities have not publicly established how broadly courts would apply the law once it takes effect. The federal case may determine whether its restrictions can stand before Shirley faces a civil claim under the measure.
The lawsuit asks the federal court to block AB 2624. To resolve the dispute, the court will need to examine whether the law’s limits burden protected speech and whether its classifications treat competing viewpoints differently.
The state’s stated privacy protections will face Shirley’s claim that the measure sweeps in truthful and lawfully obtained information. That conflict goes beyond one journalist’s work because it concerns when government may attach legal risk to publication.
The case remains an ongoing constitutional challenge, not a final ruling against California. No court finding provided here has declared AB 2624 unconstitutional or resolved Shirley’s claims.
Privacy laws cannot become a selective shield from public scrutiny. Courts must keep that line clear when speech, reporting and political accountability collide.
