Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 2624 on Saturday, and Sacramento wants Americans to see only a safety measure. Threats, stalking, and doxxing deserve condemnation. Nobody should have to fear violence because of where he works. But California lawmakers made a larger political choice when they created special statutory protections around an entire immigration-services ecosystem.
Assemblymember Mia Bonta, D-Oakland, authored AB 2624, which takes effect Oct. 1, 2027.
6218.19. (a) (1) A person, business, or association shall not knowingly publicly post or publicly display, disclose, or distribute on the internet the personal information or image of any designated immigration support services provider, employee, or volunteer, or other individuals residing at the same home address, with the specific intent to do either of the following:
(A) Incite a third person to cause imminent great bodily harm to the designated immigration support services provider, employee, or volunteer identified in the posting or display, or to a coresident of that person, where the third person is likely to commit this imminent harm.
(B) Threaten the designated immigration support services provider, employee, or volunteer identified in the posting or display, or a coresident of that person, in a manner that places the person identified or the coresident in objectively reasonable fear for their personal safety.
(2) A designated immigration support services provider, employee, or volunteer whose personal information or image is made public as a result of a violation of paragraph (1), or any individual entity or organization authorized to act on their behalf, may do either or both of the following:
(A) Bring an action seeking injunctive or declarative relief in any court of competent jurisdiction. If a jury or court finds that a violation has occurred, it may grant injunctive or declarative relief and shall award the successful plaintiff court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
(B) Bring an action for money damages in any court of competent jurisdiction. In addition to any other legal rights or remedies, if a jury or court finds that a violation has occurred, it shall award damages to that individual in an amount up to a maximum of three times the actual damages, but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000).
(b) (1) A program participant, or an individual, entity, or organization authorized to act on their behalf, may make a written demand to a person, business, or association to not publicly post or publicly display, disclose, or distribute on the internet the personal information or image of the program participant.
(2) A person, business, or association in receipt of a written demand pursuant to paragraph (1) shall not publicly post or publicly display, disclose, or distribute on the internet the personal information or image of the program participant with the specific intent to do either of the following:
(A) Incite a third person to cause imminent great bodily harm to the program participant or their coresident where the third person is likely to commit this imminent harm.
(B) Threaten the program participant or their coresident in a manner that places the program participant or their coresident in objectively reasonable fear for their personal safety.
(3) A written demand made pursuant to paragraph (1) shall include a statement declaring that the program participant is subject to the protection of this chapter and describing the reasonable fear that the program participant or their coresident has for their safety. A demand made under paragraph (1) shall be effective for four years, regardless of whether the program participant’s affiliation with a designated immigration support services facility expires prior to the end of the four-year period.
(4) A program participant whose personal information or image is made public as a result of a failure to honor a demand made pursuant to paragraph (1), or any individual, entity, or organization authorized to act on their behalf, may bring an action seeking injunctive or declarative relief in any court of competent jurisdiction. If a jury or court finds that a violation has occurred, it may grant injunctive or declarative relief and shall award the successful plaintiff court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.
(c) (1) A person, business, or association shall not solicit, sell, or trade on the internet the personal information or image of a designated immigration support services provider, employee, or volunteer with the specific intent to do either of the following:
(A) Incite a third person to cause imminent great bodily harm to such an individual, or to a coresident of such an individual, where the third person is likely to commit this imminent harm.
(B) Threaten such an individual or a coresident of such an individual, in a manner that places the individual in objectively reasonable fear for their personal safety.
(2) A designated immigration support services provider, employee, or volunteer whose personal information or image is solicited, sold, or traded in violation of paragraph (1), or any individual, entity, or organization authorized to act on their behalf, may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. In addition to any other legal rights and remedies, if a jury or court finds that a violation has occurred, it shall award damages to that individual in an amount up to a maximum of three times the actual damages, but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000).
(d) An interactive computer service or access software provider, as defined in Section 230(f) of Title 47 of the United States Code, shall not be liable under this section unless the service or provider specifically intends to incite a third person to cause imminent bodily harm or threatens to cause bodily harm to a designated immigration support services provider, employee, or volunteer, or any person residing at the same home address.
(e) This section does not preclude punishment under any other provision of law.
It creates an address-confidentiality program for qualifying immigration-support providers, employees, and volunteers who face threats or harassment tied to their work.
From Bonta's website:
THE BILL
AB 2624 does not restrict filming in public, does not prohibit investigative journalism, does not modify public records law for organizations, and does not apply to anyone who hasn't voluntarily enrolled in and been certified by the Safe at Home program. It extends a 28-year-old, court-tested confidentiality program to people who are being followed home and threatened for helping their neighbors.
ON EVIDENCE CODE §1070
Earlier drafts of AB 2624 included an explicit reference to Evidence Code §1070, California's journalist shield law. That reference was removed in the Senate's July 2026 amendments to remove legal redundancy and ensure it was clear no provision of this bill touches the journalism Californians rely on to hold government accountable.
The language in AB 2624 requires the specific intent to incite imminent great bodily harm, or to place someone in objectively reasonable fear for their safety. Actions which fall outside the scope of journalism.
Section 1070 is an independent, standing statute. Removing a citation to it from AB 2624 does not touch it, narrow it, or affect who it protects. Investigative journalism tactics such as showing up somewhere, filming in public, publishing a report, does not meet the threshold of incitement of harm within AB 2624.
Assemblymember Bonta remains committed to a free and independent press, and to the journalists who do the daily work of holding California's government accountable. The opposition to AB 2624 has not come from them. It has come from bad-faith actors looking for any available vehicle to smear immigrant communities and the people who serve them.
Sounds narrow enough, right? Keep reading.
California defines "immigration support services" to include legal representation, advocacy, case management, humanitarian relief, immigration resources, referrals, translation, counseling, and healthcare.
Covered facilities include nonprofit offices, community legal clinics, law offices, federally recognized immigration-service entities, accredited representative sites, and healthcare facilities.
The law doesn't seal an NGO's financial records or prohibit somebody from filming in public. Bonta's office emphasized both points. It does, however, create a new protected statutory category for people attached to a broad network of organizations advancing immigration policies and services Sacramento strongly favors.
California's own language removes any doubt about the political atmosphere surrounding the law. The legislature declares that threats against immigration workers will continue because of the Trump administration's "anti-immigration attitude and policies."
They actually wrote the political accusation into the statute.
Safe at Home began in 1998 to protect domestic-violence victims. California later expanded it to people facing stalking, sexual assault, human trafficking, child abduction, and elder abuse, then to "reproductive-health workers" and certain public employees facing threats.
From California's Secretary of State's site:
A new law, Assembly Bill 82, expands program eligibility to individuals who are providers, employees, volunteers, or patients of gender-affirming health and mental health care, as well as their family members.
The Secretary of State’s Office has submitted a legislative budget change proposal to the Department of Finance. Once approved and enacted through the Governor’s budget, the Safe at Home program will implement Assembly Bill 82. Please visit this page regularly for updated information.
In the meantime, individuals interested in applying are encouraged to review our Applicants page to determine whether they may qualify under another applicant type.
Safe at Home Celebrates 25 Years
Safe at Home was established in 1998 through state legislation and the program was started in July 1999. California started its program to help domestic violence victims keep their address and voter records confidential. Today, the program can serve many more types of victims and survivors and offer an array of services, thanks to important changes to the law over the years.
The mission has steadily moved beyond protecting victims based on what happened to them and toward protecting people because of the work they perform.
AB 2624 even acknowledges that it limits the public's constitutional right of access to certain government writings. California says the restriction is necessary to protect residential addresses.
Fine.
But whenever the government reduces public access, conservatives should ask where the next boundary will be drawn.
Protecting a threatened legal assistant's home address is defensible. Building layer after layer of special protections around a politically favored network deserves scrutiny.
California increasingly governs through activists, nonprofits, legal organizations, advocacy groups, and public-private networks that operate close to government policy without actually being government.
AB 2624 places another layer of protection around one segment of that world.
The question Sacramento should have to answer is simple: At what point does protecting someone from a genuine threat become creating a protected political class whose work government considers too important, too vulnerable, or too ideologically valuable to face the same scrutiny as everybody else?
California hasn't reached the end of that road.
It just added another lane.
PJ Media VIP keeps independent conservative journalism alive when government and its favored institutions would rather face fewer questions. Join today and save 60% with promo code FIGHT.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member