INSIDE THIS REPORT

AB 2624 would protect threatened immigration-service workers. Critics warn it could chill fraud investigations. The final bill requires proof of specific harmful intent.

By Samuel López | USA Herald

SACRAMENTO - A California privacy bill branded by critics as the “Stop Nick Shirley Act” landed on Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk Wednesday, placing him at the center of an escalating battle over worker safety, government accountability and the First Amendment.

The Legislature’s official history shows the Senate passed AB 2624 by a 30–10 vote on August 18. The Assembly concurred in Senate amendments 59–19 the following day, and the bill was presented to Newsom at 1:30 p.m.

Authored by Assemblymember Mia Bonta, AB 2624 would extend California’s longstanding Safe at Home address-confidentiality system to qualifying immigration-support providers, employees and volunteers.

Covered facilities could include nonprofit offices, community legal clinics, law offices and healthcare facilities providing services to immigrants. Applicants would have to document their connection to a covered facility, provide evidence of recent threats, harassment or violence, and submit a sworn statement explaining their safety concerns.

The controversy, however, centers on provisions governing the online publication of workers’ personal information or images.

Critics contend the bill could be weaponized against citizen journalists who enter publicly accessible locations, record employees and investigate organizations receiving taxpayer money. Nick Shirley, known for confrontational videos alleging fraud involving government-funded programs, has argued the proposal could protect questionable operations from public scrutiny.

The dispute intensified after Shirley circulated video of a confrontation with Terry Schanz, chief of staff to Assemblymember Tina McKinnor. Footage showed Schanz carrying a flyer mocking Shirley’s anatomy. USA Herald has not independently determined who produced the flyers or whether public resources were used.

Bonta insists legitimate reporting is not the bill’s target.

“Investigative journalism such as visiting locations, filming in public, publishing reports does not meet that standard and is not touched by this bill,” Bonta wrote while defending the measure. She added that “doxxing and inciting violence are not journalism.”

The enrolled bill text substantially supports Bonta’s description—but with an important qualification.

AB 2624 does not authorize a successful lawsuit merely because a worker feels afraid or dislikes being filmed. Under proposed Government Code §6218.19, a plaintiff would have to prove that personal information or an identifying image was knowingly published with the specific intent either to incite another person to cause imminent great bodily harm that is likely to occur or to threaten someone in a manner creating an objectively reasonable fear for personal safety.

A proven violation could support injunctive or declaratory relief, attorney’s fees and damages of up to three times actual losses, but no less than $4,000. A separate written-demand procedure permits qualifying program participants to request removal, but obtaining relief after that demand still depends on proving the statutorily required harmful intent. Fear may initiate the process; fear alone does not establish liability.

An earlier Assembly version expressly exempted persons and entities covered by California Evidence Code §1070, the journalist shield statute. The Senate’s July 2 amendment deleted that language. At the same time, lawmakers narrowed the written-demand provision by adding the specific-intent requirement throughout.

That tradeoff matters. Section 1070 principally protects journalists from contempt for refusing to disclose sources; it is not blanket immunity from generally applicable civil or criminal laws. Nevertheless, removing an express press protection invites concern that independent reporters may face expensive litigation before establishing that their work was protected newsgathering rather than a genuine threat.

Constitutionally, California may punish true threats and intentional incitement of imminent violence. It may not suppress truthful public-interest reporting simply because that reporting embarrasses a protected organization or exposes possible misconduct.

That distinction will determine whether AB 2624 functions as a safety measure—or becomes a legal pressure point against the people watching where public money goes.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Samuel López is a Senior Legal Analyst, investigative journalist and legal researcher with more than two decades of experience examining litigation, statutory language and complex legal controversies. His background in advanced legal research and case analysis enables him to investigate how proposed laws may operate beyond their political messaging—and what they could mean for constitutional rights, public accountability and ordinary citizens.

Stay Ahead of the Story

If this investigation gave you information you were not finding elsewhere, join the USA Herald exclusive newsletter for breaking legal news, investigative reporting and national-security analysis delivered directly to you. Follow USA Herald on X for developing stories and real-time updates.