California Lawmaker Sues Over Newsom's 'Stop Nick Shirley Act'

Assemblyman Carl DeMaio is preparing a lawsuit against Governor Gavin Newsom’s new California law, a measure critics call the “Stop Nick Shirley Act.” The law takes effect October 1, 2027, and DeMaio says it will make it harder for ordinary people to document fraud involving taxpayer money.

What the law does

Assembly Bill 2624 expands California’s Safe at Home address‑confidentiality program to workers, volunteers and providers at organizations that offer immigration‑support services. Supporters say the change protects people from threats, harassment and doxxing. The law also creates civil and criminal provisions tied to publishing personal information or images with the specific intent that another person imminently commit a violent crime or make a threat of violence.

Critics argue the danger is not only about convictions. They say the threat of fines and legal fees can chill reporting before a case ever reaches a judge. DeMaio told Fox News Digital the bill “basically makes it illegal for a citizen journalist to document fraud of taxpayer money and post that on the internet in the form of an internet video.” He added that he and a “coalition of civil liberty protectors” are ready to file suit and that they hope the U.S. Department of Justice will intervene, calling it “an open‑and‑shut infringement on our First Amendment rights.”

Newsom’s office rejects that framing. A spokesperson said the law has nothing to do with Nick Shirley, a conservative journalist whose investigations of immigrant‑service nonprofits helped inspire the nickname, and that “the real controversy here is that MAGA Republicans are either lying to create up fake conspiracy theories, or none of them know how to read.” The spokesperson said the law does not affect Shirley’s journalism and does not hide fraud.

Why this feels different

I read the bill text and the statements from both sides, and I keep returning to one question. What happens when a person with a phone sees something that looks like waste or abuse inside a publicly funded program? Under this law, that person could face civil damages of at least $4,000 per violation plus attorney fees, and in some cases criminal penalties including fines and jail time, if a court finds they published information or images with the intent to incite violence or threats.

That is a high bar for liability, and the law includes an intent requirement. But intent is hard to prove and expensive to defend. For a small creator or a local watchdog, the cost of a lawsuit can be the punishment, even if they win. That is why DeMaio’s planned challenge matters beyond the politics. It asks whether a state can protect vulnerable workers without making ordinary people think twice before posting what they saw.

There is also the matter of timing. Newsom signed the bill on August 22, 2026. It does not take effect until October 1, 2027, nearly ten months after he is expected to leave office because of term limits. That means the person who signed it will not be in the governor’s office when the first court fights arrive. The next administration will inherit the defense of the law and any settlements or injunctions that follow.

The fraud question that hangs over the fight

DeMaio frames the lawsuit as a response to what he calls California’s “monumental problem” with fraud in immigrant‑service programs. He has pointed to past investigations by Shirley and others as examples of reporting that could be chilled. Those allegations of waste and abuse are serious, and they deserve scrutiny. They are also disputed, and the existence of fraud on the scale critics describe has not been proven in court.

That uncertainty is part of why this story lands with such weight. If there is significant fraud, the public has a strong interest in seeing it documented and reported. If there is not, the state has a strong interest in protecting workers from harassment and doxxing. The law tries to serve both aims. The lawsuit will test whether it can.

DeMaio said he has been in dialogue with the Justice Department’s Office for Civil Rights and that they have a “game plan” to proceed in court. He has not filed the suit yet, but he said a plaintiff is lined up and briefs are being prepared. Until a complaint is filed and a judge rules, the core claims on both sides remain just that: claims.

What I find myself watching for is simple. Will the case turn on the text of the law, or on the facts of a specific video, a specific post, a specific threat? The answer will tell us whether this fight is about broad press freedom or about the line between reporting and harassment in a single kind of workplace. Either way, the outcome will shape how ordinary people in California decide what to record, what to share, and what to keep to themselves.