California

California enacts AB 2624 address-confidentiality rules for immigration-support workers; Shirley sues

September 8, 2026 · California

Chapter 117 expands Safe-at-Home-style protections and internet posting limits for immigration-support providers; Nick Shirley’s E.D. Cal. complaint challenges the law before the Oct 2027 operative date.

California
Immigration
Privacy
First Amendment
Fraud investigations

What happened

On 22 August 2026 Governor Gavin Newsom approved Assembly Bill 2624, and the Secretary of State chaptered it the same day as Chapter 117, Statutes of 2026. The official title is Privacy for immigration support services providers. The act adds Chapter 3.26 to the Government Code, §§6218.10 through 6218.21. It does not take effect for everyday use until 1 October 2027.

One concrete number in the chaptered text is the civil damages floor. If a jury or court finds a covered violation of the internet posting, display, disclosure, distribution, solicitation, sale, or trade rules in §6218.19, it “shall award damages … up to a maximum of three times the actual damages, but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000).”

The Legislature’s findings open with harassment and threats against people who provide immigrant-community support services. Section 6218.10 says workers have faced doxxing, courthouse targeting, online harassment, vigilante threats, coordinated campaigns, and death threats, and that those acts “have risen to alarming levels in 2025 and will continue due to the current federal administration’s anti-immigration attitude and policies.”

The architecture tracks earlier Safe at Home and online-privacy chapters for reproductive and gender-affirming health workers. Legislative Counsel’s digest says the bill similarly creates an address-confidentiality program through the Secretary of State for designated immigration support services providers, employees, or volunteers who face threats or harassment because of their facility affiliation. False statements on an application are a misdemeanor under the parallel Safe at Home pattern the digest recites. The Secretary of State may terminate participation if false information was used to qualify or if participation is used “as a subterfuge to avoid detection of illegal or criminal activity or apprehension by law enforcement” (§6218.14(b)(2)).

Definitions do work that later litigation will fight over. “Designated immigration support services” includes legal representation, advocacy, case management, translation, counseling, health care, and more (§6218.11(b)). A covered “provider, employee, or volunteer” is a person who “provides, assists in providing, or receives” those services at a designated facility (§6218.11(c)). “Personal information” runs from name and address through Social Security number, employment and financial data, and an open-ended “including, but not limited to” list (§6218.11(h)). “Image” includes photograph, video, sketch, or computer-generated likeness (§6218.11(g)).

On the internet side, §§6218.18–6218.20 bar specified posting and trading of home addresses, personal information, or images when the actor has a specific intent tied to imminent great bodily harm, threats to personal safety, or imminent use of the information to commit a crime involving violence or a threat of violence. Interactive computer services are generally not liable unless they specifically intend the harm (§6218.19(d)). Program participants get a written-demand track to seek removal and related relief (§6218.19(b)). The Senate Public Safety analysis states that, unlike the reproductive-health counterpart’s misdemeanor posting crime, this bill’s online piece provides civil remedies for its posting provisions. Chaptered §6218.20 still labels covered posting “unlawful” without spelling felony or misdemeanor in that section; false-application misdemeanors remain in the Safe at Home-style application rules.

Floor votes were not close. Assembly third reading on 26 May 2026 passed 57–19–4. Senate third reading on 18 August 2026 passed 30–10. Assembly concurrence in Senate amendments on 19 August 2026 passed 59–19–1. Assemblymember DeMaio is among the Noes on both the May Assembly third reading and the August concurrence.

Author materials and committee analyses call the measure the “Safe at Work Act.” The Senate Judiciary analysis lists sponsors as the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA) and the Women’s Foundation California, Solis Policy Institute. The Senate Floor analysis verified on 13 August 2026 lists CHIRLA as source among supporters including AFSCME, the California Immigrant Policy Center, CTA, Immigrant Defenders Law Center, and UnidosUS, and records opposition that day as “None received.” The earlier Senate Public Safety file lists California Family Council and California Baptist for Biblical Values in opposition. The Family Council letter, as quoted there, objects to wrapping government-funded immigration-service organizations in a “legal secrecy shield” and describes a “$10,000 per-violation penalty structure.” The chaptered civil floor is $4,000.

Senate Appropriations figures recited on the Floor estimate about $290,000 for the Secretary of State in FY 2026–27 and $154,000 annually thereafter for Safe at Home staffing and systems, and about $325,000 a year at DMV for Protected Records applications. Digest keys mark Appropriation: No and Fiscal Committee: Yes.

The string “Nick Shirley” does not appear in the chaptered statute or in the Senate Public Safety, Senate Judiciary, or Senate Floor analyses opened for this file. It appears in the lawsuit.

On 4 September 2026, Nicholas Shirley sued Attorney General Robert Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber in their official capacities in the Eastern District of California, Case No. 2:26-at-01477, filed as Document 1 that day. America First Legal Foundation and JW Howard / Attorneys, Ltd. appear as counsel. The complaint says AB 2624 is “most commonly known” by the colloquial name “Stop Nick Shirley Act,” citing news coverage for that nickname. Shirley describes himself as an investigative journalist who reports on government spending, fraud, waste, abuse, and immigration, and he alleges California fraud reporting in February 2026 preceded Mia Bonta’s introduction of AB 2624 on 20 February 2026. He seeks a declaration that §§6218.11 and 6218.18–6218.21 are unconstitutional on their face and as applied, and an injunction against enforcement. The counts plead content- and viewpoint-based speech restrictions, overbreadth, vagueness, and an ex post facto theory aimed at pre-enactment publications that remain online. He argues California’s existing doxing statute, Civil Code §1708.89, already covers the field without a viewpoint-specific immigration-services scheme, and that the chill is ripe before the 1 October 2027 operative date.

Neither the chaptered bill nor the complaint adjudicates whether particular daycare or immigration-services fraud claims are true. The statute states a privacy and safety program. The complaint states a First Amendment challenge to that program.

Key facts

AB 2624 (Bonta), Privacy for immigration support services providers, was chaptered by the Secretary of State as Chapter 117, Statutes of 2026, after Governor Newsom approved it on 22 August 2026.
The act adds Government Code §§6218.10–6218.21. It becomes operative on 1 October 2027 (§6218.21).
Assembly concurrence in Senate amendments on 19 August 2026 passed 59–19–1. Senate third reading on 18 August 2026 passed 30–10. Assembly third reading on 26 May 2026 passed 57–19–4. Assemblymember DeMaio is among the recorded No votes on the concurrence and Assembly third-reading roll calls.
Under §6218.19, a court that finds a covered internet posting, display, disclosure, distribution, solicitation, sale, or trade violation “shall award damages … up to a maximum of three times the actual damages, but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000).”
§6218.11(c) defines a “designated immigration support services provider, employee, or volunteer” as a person who “provides, assists in providing, or receives” immigration support services at a designated facility.
§6218.14(b)(2) lets the Secretary of State terminate participation if false information was used in the application or if participation is used “as a subterfuge to avoid detection of illegal or criminal activity or apprehension by law enforcement.”
The name “Nick Shirley” does not appear in the chaptered statute or in the Senate Public Safety, Senate Judiciary, or Senate Floor analyses opened for this piece. Author materials and committee analyses brand the measure the “Safe at Work Act.” The Shirley complaint says the law is “most commonly known” by the colloquial name “Stop Nick Shirley Act,” citing news coverage.
Nicholas Shirley filed Shirley v. Bonta et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on 4 September 2026, Case No. 2:26-at-01477, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against Attorney General Robert Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley N. Weber in their official capacities. Counsel of record include America First Legal Foundation and JW Howard / Attorneys, Ltd.
Senate Appropriations figures cited in the Senate Floor analysis estimate about $290,000 for the Secretary of State in FY 2026–27 and $154,000 ongoing, plus about $325,000 annually at DMV for Protected Records processing. Digest keys: Appropriation No; Fiscal Committee Yes.
Senate Floor support verified 13 August 2026 lists CHIRLA as source/sponsor among others; opposition that day is listed as “None received.” The earlier Senate Public Safety analysis lists California Family Council and California Baptist for Biblical Values in opposition.

Sources

AB-2624 Privacy for immigration support services providers (chaptered text)California Legislative Information · 22 August 2026
AB-2624 Bill VotesCalifornia Legislative Information · 19 August 2026
AB-2624 Bill StatusCalifornia Legislative Information · 22 August 2026
Senate Committee on Public Safety analysis of AB 2624California Senate Committee on Public Safety · June 2026
Senate Judiciary Committee analysis of AB 2624 (Bonta)California Senate Judiciary Committee · 23 June 2026
Senate Floor Analyses, AB 2624 (Office of Senate Floor Analyses)California Senate Rules Committee, Office of Senate Floor Analyses · 14 August 2026
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Shirley v. Bonta et al., No. 2:26-at-01477America First Legal Foundation (court filing) · 4 September 2026

Perspectives

California Legislature (chaptered findings, §6218.10)Persons providing support services to the immigrant community have been subject to harassment, threats, and intimidation. Workers have faced doxxing, courthouse targeting, online harassment, anti-immigrant vigilante threats, coordinated campaigns, and death threats, which “have risen to alarming levels in 2025 and will continue due to the current federal administration’s anti-immigration attitude and policies.”
Author statement (Senate Public Safety / Floor analyses)AB 2624, branded the “Safe at Work Act,” strengthens protections for nonprofit staff, volunteers, and legal-services providers who may face doxxing, harassment, or threats. Extending Safe at Home lets eligible participants keep personal information confidential in public records so they can deliver legal, social, and humanitarian services.
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), sponsorImmigration-service workers lack the confidentiality other Safe at Home groups have. Extending those safeguards helps them work without fear for their safety and preserves continuity of legal guidance, advocacy, and community resources.
California Family Council (Senate Public Safety opposition letter)Extending address confidentiality to immigration-services employees and volunteers—many at organizations that receive substantial government funding—“removes a fundamental check on how taxpayer dollars are spent.” The letter calls the online-posting prohibition’s intent standard “dangerously vague,” says truthful reporting on matters of public concern has strong First Amendment protection, and objects to what it describes as a “$10,000 per-violation penalty structure” creating a chilling effect. The chaptered statute’s civil damages floor is $4,000, not $10,000.
Nicholas Shirley / America First Legal complaintAB 2624, which the complaint says is colloquially called the “Stop Nick Shirley Act,” imposes content- and viewpoint-based limits on publishing personal information about immigration-support providers, even when lawfully obtained for reporting on public concern. Shirley alleges facial and as-applied First Amendment violations, overbreadth and vagueness, and an ex post facto problem for pre-enactment publications that remain online; he says California Civil Code §1708.89 already addresses doxing generally. He seeks declaratory and injunctive relief before the 1 October 2027 operative date, arguing the chill is ripe now.