Newsom’s New Privacy Law Draws GOP Challenge — but Does It Really Block Fraud Investigations?

Republicans ask the Justice Department to intervene

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A newly signed California law intended to protect immigration-service workers from threats and harassment is facing a Republican backlash, with nine members of Congress asking the U.S. Department of Justice to consider a First Amendment challenge.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 2624 on August 22. Critics have labeled it the “Stop Nick Shirley Act” and argue that it could prevent journalists and private citizens from investigating organizations suspected of misusing taxpayer money. That nickname does not appear in the legislation.

In an August 28 announcement, Republican Study Committee members said they asked Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to review the law and pursue federal court action. California Reps. James Gallagher and Vince Fong argued that the measure could create legal risks for reporters investigating publicly funded organizations.

No court has ruled AB 2624 unconstitutional, and the Justice Department has not publicly announced a lawsuit over the measure.

Read the source: California Legislative Information: enacted text of AB 2624 ↗

What AB 2624 actually changes

The allegation that AB 2624 simply makes it illegal to investigate or expose fraud leaves out important parts of the enacted text. The measure primarily expands California’s Safe at Home address-confidentiality system.

Beginning October 1, 2027, qualifying providers, employees and volunteers at organizations offering immigration-related services may apply for a substitute mailing address through the Secretary of State. Applicants must document a qualifying threat, harassment or violence during the preceding year.

State and local agencies would generally use the substitute address instead of publicly disclosing a participant’s residential address. The program covers workers and volunteers at nonprofit offices, legal clinics, law offices, health facilities and other organizations offering services such as legal assistance, translation, case management, humanitarian relief and counseling.

The law does not prevent police from obtaining a participant’s real address. Its text permits disclosure to law enforcement, through a court order or when officials determine that participation is being used to avoid detection of illegal activity or apprehension by law enforcement.

Read the source: Republican Study Committee: request for a Justice Department challenge ↗

The law targets doxxing connected to threats or violence

AB 2624 creates restrictions involving the online publication of protected personal information and images. Its criminal provisions require more than merely photographing a workplace, naming an organization or reporting an allegation of fraud.

The enacted language applies when a person knowingly publishes specified information with the specific intent to incite another person to cause imminent great bodily harm that is likely to occur, or threatens to cause such harm. Other provisions address conduct intended to place a protected worker in reasonable fear for their safety.

One provision allows covered workers to issue written demands seeking removal of personal information from the internet. That subsection expressly exempts a person or entity defined under California Evidence Code Section 1070, the state provision protecting journalists from being compelled to reveal sources or unpublished information.

Nothing in the statute gives immigration nonprofits immunity from audits, subpoenas, police investigations or scrutiny of their government funding. It does not prohibit reporters from reviewing public expenditures, interviewing witnesses, examining corporate filings or delivering evidence of suspected fraud to authorities.

Read the source: Los Angeles Times: Newsom signs immigrant-aid-worker address privacy law ↗

Press-freedom concerns are still worth watching

Although the law is narrower than its most sweeping critics suggest, civil-liberties advocates have raised a legitimate concern: even carefully written privacy laws can be invoked against journalists, requiring news organizations to spend time and money defending constitutionally protected reporting.

The Los Angeles Times reported that a representative of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression pointed to a New Jersey dispute in which an official attempted to use an address-protection law against a local news outlet. That example does not establish that California’s measure is unconstitutional, but it explains why journalists may closely watch how AB 2624 is enforced.

Assemblymember Mia Bonta, the Alameda Democrat who introduced the bill, has said the legislation responds to stalking, threatening calls, online harassment and publication of immigration-service workers’ home addresses. She argues that legitimate journalism and doxxing intended to produce violence are not the same conduct.

Read the source: California Secretary of State: Safe at Home program ↗

Bottom line: the broadest claim is misleading

The claim that Newsom signed a law broadly prohibiting fraud investigations is misleading. AB 2624 creates address-confidentiality protections and new legal restrictions involving personal information, but it does not outlaw ordinary investigative reporting or shield organizations from lawful government scrutiny.

The measure could still generate a serious constitutional fight. Courts may eventually have to decide whether particular provisions are sufficiently narrow and whether any attempted enforcement improperly burdens protected speech.

For now, however, the confirmed facts are more limited than the viral framing: Congress members have requested Justice Department action, no federal challenge has been announced, and the central program will not begin accepting applications until October 1, 2027.

Read the source: Wikimedia Commons: Gavin Newsom official portrait ↗