Conservative YouTuber sues to block California immigration-services privacy law

A conservative YouTuber has sued to block a California law that Republican lawmakers have dubbed the "Stop Nick Shirley Act."

Attorneys for Nicholas "Nick" Shirley filed the lawsuit Friday in federal court in Sacramento, challenging AB 2624, which restricts the publication of certain personal information about people who provide immigration-related services.

Shirley, represented by attorneys from the America First Legal Foundation, argues the measure violates the First Amendment and threatens investigative journalism by potentially imposing liability for publishing truthful information obtained from public sources.

"The First Amendment does not allow the government to silence truthful reporting. ... Yet that is precisely what AB 2624 threatens to do," San Diego attorney John W. Howard wrote in the complaint. "The law imposes civil liability for publishing, disclosing, or trading certain personal information concerning providers of immigration-related services--even when that information is lawfully obtained and published as part of reporting on matters of public concern."

Shirley gained national prominence through YouTube reports outside Somali-owned day care centers that he alleged were defrauding government assistance programs. Some operators have since been charged.

The California lawsuit names Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber as defendants. AB 2624 was authored by Assemblymember Mia Bonta, D-Oakland, the attorney general's wife. She was elected to the Assembly seat he previously held after Gov. Gavin Newsom appointed him attorney general.

The case is Shirley v. Bonta, 2:26-at-01477 (E.D. Cal., filed Sept. 4, 2026).

Republicans in the California Legislature drew attention to the measure by labeling it the "Stop Nick Shirley Act."

Newsom signed AB 2624 on Aug. 22, and it is scheduled to take effect Oct. 1, 2027. The law creates protections for people who provide immigration-related services, including legal assistance, referrals, translation, counseling and health care. Among other provisions, it restricts certain online publication or distribution of personal information when done with the specific intent to incite imminent violence or threaten a protected person.

Shirley contends those restrictions go too far and could expose journalists to civil or criminal liability for publishing truthful information obtained from public sources. According to the complaint, he intends to continue reporting on immigration organizations and what he alleges may be fraud and misuse of taxpayer funds.

The lawsuit alleges the statute is unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to Shirley. It also claims AB 2624 imposes content- and viewpoint-based restrictions on speech and is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague.

Shirley raises an additional challenge based on previously published material, arguing the statute could operate as an unconstitutional ex post facto law if liability attaches to information posted before AB 2624 takes effect but that remains available online afterward.

The complaint also argues the law discriminates based on viewpoint because it protects people who provide immigration-support services without imposing comparable restrictions on the publication of information about people involved in immigration enforcement.

Shirley is asking the court to declare portions of AB 2624 unconstitutional and issue preliminary and permanent injunctions blocking their enforcement.