One man sniffed out hundreds of millions of dollars of fraud and exposed it. One man was targeted for retaliation. And only one man, with a phalanx of lawyers, is fighting back attempts to silence him and other reporters.
Independent journalist Nick Shirley is preparing for what could be a years-long war against California, to vanquish what its legislative supporters and insiders dubbed the "Stop Nick Shirley Act" in California.
The law, AB 2624, prevents reporters from publishing stories on so-called people doing "immigrant" outreach, without prior written permission. The law expands California’s Safe at Home address-confidentiality program carving out protections for people specifically working with “immigration support services.” It's so vague that, as the lawsuit states, "AB 2624 fails to provide Mr. Shirley fair notice of what conduct is prohibited and is sufficiently standardless to invite arbitrary enforcement."
Because of the vagueness of the bill, which Assemblywoman Mia Bonta put forward, the wife of California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who's the defendant in this case, past acts of reporting also come under the new law's umbrella. This means Shirley is potentially civilly and criminally liable for taking video of the people he caught stealing millions from government welfare and health programs and already published months ago.
The First Amendment-destroying legislation, which Gov. Gavin Newsom has now signed into law, was always aimed at Shirley. The lawsuit provides the timeline.
— A. R. Morgan Jr. (@alrmorgan) September 4, 2026
A battalion of lawyers from America First Legal filed the 22-page lawsuit on Shirley's behalf on Friday in U.S. District Court in Sacramento. They allege that the Stop Nick Shirley Act, AB 2624, is unconstitutional on its face and in four other ways. The law they allege is viewpoint-based discrimination, overly broad in its scope, unconstitutionally vague, and applies after the fact to work Shirley has already done — ex post facto — and published.
Keep Up — West Coast, Messed Coast™– Califraudia's Protection Act for Billion-Dollar Robber Barons
In true Orwellian fashion, Shirley's reporting covers reporting that "was lawful when he published it." The lawsuit states claims that "thus, as applied to Mr. Shirley, AB 2624 attaches new criminal consequences to his completed, pre-enactment publication of information that was lawful when he published it."
Could this law be any more unconstitutional?
Response on the X platform to Shirley's news is a who's who of free-speech supporters. Elon Musk told him "Bravo!," and undercover journalist James O'Keefe urged him to hunker down for the long haul. "Good to see this. These legal battles may take years so hang tough and never compromise on the 1st amendment," O'Keefe told Shirley.
The new law is so odious and free-speech chilling that it's shocking other media outlets have remained on the sidelines. Here's my shocked face.
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the Society of Professional Journalists, the National Press Club, the Committee to Protect Journalists, and the California News Publishers Association have not issued statements on this new law or on Nick Shirley's right to free speech.
Make of that what you will.
Lawyers wrote that "but for the existence of AB 2624, Mr. Shirley would continue to investigate and publish the information described above without the statute’s threat of civil liability. Because of AB 2624, however, Mr. Shirley has refrained from, and continues to refrain from, engaging in constitutionally protected investigative reporting that he otherwise intends to undertake. Mr. Shirley, therefore, suffers an ongoing injury caused by AB 2624’s chilling effect on his protected speech."
No Republicans voted for this pile of partisan poo, but AB 2624 has already begun to do what Democrats wanted. Here's a key part of the lawsuit.
As a result of AB 2624 and the credible threat of enforcement, Mr. Shirley has self censored and refrained from engaging in otherwise lawful research, investigation, and publication that he would undertake but for AB 2624’s restrictions. Mr. Shirley’s injury is fairly traceable to Defendants because Defendants are the state officials charged with enforcing and administering AB 2624, and their authority to enforce the statute creates the credible threat of enforcement and the chilling effect on Mr. Shirley’s constitutionally protected speech.
In addition, the lawsuit is particularly strong about the obvious viewpoint discrimination going on here.
The statute’s viewpoint discrimination is confirmed by its legislative findings.Those findings expressly invoke concerns about “anti-immigrant” harassment directed at immigrant-assistance workers and attribute that purported harassment to “the current federal administration’s anti-immigration attitude and policies.” The statute thus reflects a legislative judgment that speech associated with one side of a contested political debate warrants special protection from disclosure and dissemination. AB 2624 cannot survive strict scrutiny because it is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.
Wow — California Democrats Just Gave the Middle Finger to 'Affordability'
Shirley and the America First Legal attorneys, along with the San Diego-based lawyer taking point on this case in California, are asking for an injunction to stop the law, a declaration from the court that the law is unconstitutional, and a permanent injunction stopping enforcement of the law. The law is set to go into effect in 2027, but as you've read, does untold damage before then.
Shirley's not asking for damages, but does want his lawyers paid. First Amendment cases always come with lawyers fees attached. Just ask the ACLU, which allegedly works "for free."
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy PJ Media's conservative reporting exposing the radical left and woke media? Support our work so we can keep bringing you the truth.
Join PJ Media VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member