Independent journalist Nick Shirley is asking a federal court to block portions of California’s newly enacted AB 2624, arguing that the immigration-services privacy law violates constitutional protections for speech and due process before it takes effect in 2027.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom.
Independent journalist Nick Shirley has filed a federal lawsuit against California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber seeking to prevent enforcement of provisions in AB 2624, a new state privacy law that critics have dubbed the “Stop Nick Shirley Act.”
Shirley filed the case Sept. 4 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the statute before it becomes operative Oct. 1, 2027, and asks the court to prevent state officials from enforcing the disputed provisions against Shirley or others. Court records confirm the complaint was filed against Bonta and Weber on Sept. 4.
The complaint alleges that AB 2624 violates the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition against state ex post facto laws. Shirley is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the statute.
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 2624 on Aug. 22. The measure expands California’s address-confidentiality protections to qualifying immigration-support services providers, employees and volunteers who fear for their safety because of their connection to an immigration-support facility. The law is scheduled to become operative Oct. 1, 2027.
The law defines designated immigration-support services broadly to include legal representation and assistance, advocacy, case management, humanitarian relief, immigration resources, referrals, translation services, counseling and health care. It also covers facilities including nonprofit offices, legal clinics, law offices, accredited immigration-service locations and health care facilities.
Shirley argues that those protections could interfere with the type of reporting he intends to continue conducting in California. According to his complaint, his work will continue examining government spending, alleged fraud and organizations providing immigration-related services and could include publishing names, employment information, photographs and videos involving people covered by the new statute.
“That uncertainty extends to speech he has already published, as Mr. Shirley cannot determine whether AB 2624 exposes him to liability for information he previously disseminated,” the complaint states.
Central to Shirley’s First Amendment argument is his claim that AB 2624 treats speech differently depending on the organizations and individuals involved. He contends the statute provides special protections to people affiliated with organizations providing immigration-support services while not extending equivalent protections to employees or volunteers associated with organizations that favor stricter immigration enforcement or oppose illegal immigration.
Shirley argues that distinction constitutes content and viewpoint discrimination.
His complaint also says he faces continuing pressure to publish new investigations and updates to previous reporting in order to keep his audience informed, creating uncertainty about what material he may legally publish once the statute becomes operative.
AB 2624 defines an “image” to include photographs and video footage capable of visually identifying a person. “Personal information” encompasses information associated with an immigration-support services provider, employee or volunteer, including a person’s name, employment and employment history, among other identifying information.
The law also allows a qualifying program participant to issue a written demand concerning the online publication, display, disclosure or distribution of the participant’s personal information or image. Such a demand remains effective for four years, even if the person’s affiliation with an immigration-support facility ends before that period expires.
The challenged restrictions include intent requirements. Under the statute, liability provisions concerning publication apply when a person acts with the specific intent to incite another person to cause imminent great bodily harm that is likely to occur or to threaten a protected person or someone living with that person in a manner that creates an objectively reasonable fear for personal safety.
Another provision makes it unlawful to post covered personal information or images online with the specific intent that another person imminently use the information to commit a crime involving violence or a threat of violence likely to occur against an immigration-support services provider, employee, volunteer or someone living at the same address.
Shirley nevertheless argues that the statute’s scope and uncertainty could chill constitutionally protected journalism even when reporting is lawful. His lawsuit also raises concerns that the law could expose him to consequences involving material published before its effective date.
California lawmakers stated in the measure that immigration-support workers have faced threats, harassment and intimidation and that protecting their home addresses is necessary to reduce the risk of violence.
Shirley is asking the federal court to declare the challenged provisions unconstitutional and issue preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing Bonta and Weber from enforcing California Government Code Sections 6218.18 through 6218.21 against him or others.
He is also seeking recovery of attorneys’ fees and other costs associated with the lawsuit. The case remains pending in federal court.
Original article
Comments