He subsequently expanded his reporting to other organizations, including facilities in California. His work has examined Armenian-run hospices, immigration-related organizations and other taxpayer-funded programs. His videos have been viewed by millions across platforms including YouTube, X, Instagram and TikTok.
California’s Safe at Home program allows qualifying individuals to use a substitute mailing address administered by the Secretary of State rather than having their residential address appear in certain public records.
The program historically covered individuals such as survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, human trafficking and elder abuse. It also included certain “health care workers” who provide abortions or sex change procedures.
The state maintains that the program is intended to protect eligible individuals from threats and harassment by preventing their home addresses from being publicly accessible through government records.
The new legislation substantially broadens the categories of people who can qualify.
Under the expanded provisions, certain immigration-support service providers, employees and volunteers working with nonprofit organizations, community legal clinics, law offices and health facilities may seek protection if they can demonstrate that their work has exposed them to “threats, harassment, or violence.”
Applicants are required to register with the state and provide documentation of a qualifying threat or incident occurring during the preceding year.
But another provision has become the central focus of Shirley’s lawsuit.
The legislation prohibits individuals from knowingly posting, selling or distributing a participant’s personal information or image online when the specific intent is to facilitate harassment, violence or credible threats — or to cause the person to experience “reasonable fear” for their safety.
Supporters argue such restrictions are necessary to protect people whose work makes them targets for intimidation or violence.
Critics, however, contend that the law could collide with constitutionally protected reporting, particularly when journalists investigate organizations involved in politically controversial issues.
Republican lawmakers have sharply criticized the measure. Assemblymember Carl DeMaio and other opponents have gone so far as to label it the “Stop Nick Shirley Act,” arguing that the timing and structure of the legislation raise questions about whether Shirley’s reporting helped trigger the effort.
The lawsuit specifically points to the sequence of events surrounding Shirley’s reporting in California.
According to the complaint, Shirley publicly stated that he had arrived in California on January 31, 2026. Days later, Bonta publicly criticized allegations involving fraud that had been raised in connection with related reporting.
Mia Bonta subsequently introduced the legislation on February 20.
That chronology is now part of the plaintiffs’ broader argument that the law could have a direct impact on Shirley’s investigative journalism.
The plaintiffs allege that AB 2624 violates the First Amendment because it allegedly imposes restrictions based on the content and viewpoint of speech. They further argue that the statute is excessively broad and insufficiently clear, raising constitutional concerns under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The complaint also raises an unusual constitutional argument under Article I, Section 10, asserting that the challenged provisions operate as an ex post facto law.
According to the lawsuit, the potential liability created by the law depends in part on whether speech concerns immigration-support providers rather than comparable organizations representing opposing viewpoints in the immigration debate.
The plaintiffs say that distinction creates a dangerous precedent for investigative journalism.
They also argue that written demands to remove content, combined with the possibility of legal liability, could discourage journalists from investigating the use of public money.
That concern is particularly significant for independent reporters who operate outside traditional newsrooms and frequently rely on public records, on-the-ground investigations and online publishing to reach audiences.
The lawsuit argues that Shirley’s work is already being affected by the law even though the challenged provisions have not yet become operative.
Shirley and America First Legal are asking the federal court to declare the disputed provisions unconstitutional both on their face and as applied to the plaintiffs.
They are also seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing California officials from enforcing the challenged portions of the statute.
The plaintiffs are additionally seeking recovery of attorney fees and related legal costs. They are not seeking monetary damages from the state.
The case now places California’s expanded privacy protections against a fundamental constitutional question: where does the state’s authority to protect individuals from harassment end, and where does a journalist’s First Amendment right to investigate and publish begin?
That question could have consequences well beyond Shirley’s reporting.
As independent journalists increasingly use social media to investigate government spending, nonprofit organizations and publicly funded programs, the outcome could help define how far states may go when attempting to protect individuals whose work places them at risk.
For Shirley, the lawsuit represents another major escalation in his battle over investigative reporting.
For California officials, the case presents a defense of a law the state says is designed to protect vulnerable people from threats and harassment.
Ultimately, a federal judge will have to determine whether the law strikes a permissible balance — or whether, as Shirley and his legal team allege, it crosses a constitutional line by placing protected journalism at risk.
