Californians torch Gavin Newsom’s chilling ‘Stop Nick Shirley Act’ — teeing up huge clash with feds

Gavin Newsom has been slammed for signing a controversial privacy law that critics have branded the “Stop Nick Shirley Act” — setting the stage for a potential First Amendment fight.

The law, introduced by Democratic Assemblymember Mia Bonta, expands the state’s address-protection program to immigration-service workers.

Supporters say it protects workers from threats and doxing, while critics argue it could hinder journalists and investigators from doing their job.

The nickname refers to Nick Shirley, a conservative citizen journalist who has gained attention for videos investigating government-funded programs and confronting workers at various facilities.

Republians across California tore into Newsom for signing it into law Saturday, saying they want the federal government to intervene before it takes effect.

Republican Assemblymember Carl DeMaio said Sunday he is asking the Justice Department to step in and block it.

“I ultimately believe that this has to go to court because clearly our politicians don’t give a damn about our First Amendment rights. But this is a bad pattern of behavior,” he told the California Post.

The Post has reached out to the Department of Justice for comment on whether it plans to intervene.

California Sen. Tony Strickland also accused Newsom and Democratic lawmakers of attacking basic constitutional protections rather than welcoming scrutiny of government spending.

“It goes against everything we have here in America, but with the vague language, it’s shutting down speech and the freedom of the press,” Strickland told The Post. “Every person and every taxpayer, every person should be able to ask questions and hold our government accountable.”

Strickland predicted the law could eventually wind up before a federal judge.

“I do believe this law will be ruled unconstitutional. It violates the First Amendment. However, someone’s going to have to challenge it,” he said, adding his team is exploring a potential legal challenge. “If the federal government doesn’t step in, it violates the First Amendment. We have a right to freedom of speech and a right to freedom of the press.”

Strickland also took aim directly at Newsom, accusing the governor of hypocrisy.

“He needs to look in the mirror and look at how he’s doing dangerous things,” he said. “If you want to look up dictatorship, look at trying to shut down people from exercising freedom of speech, freedom of the press and asking questions on how you’re spending the people’s money.”

California Republicans have portrayed the law as evidence that Sacramento is attempting to make government harder to scrutinize.

GOP Chairwoman Corrine Rankin argued taxpayers should be able to question how their money is being spent without facing unnecessary obstacles.

“Californians should be able to question how public funds are used without facing unnecessary barriers to investigation.”

GOP gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton also tied the fight to California’s broader debate over government spending and taxes.

“Californians have been ripped off for years with all the waste in our government — that’s why we pay the highest taxes in the country for the worst results,” Hilton said.

“Instead of attacking people who are trying to expose the waste, we need a new governor who will find it, stop it and give the money back to taxpayers; that’s why I recently announced Operation Zero Waste as part of my plan to make Californians’ first $150,000 of income tax free.”

Newsom and Bonta have rejected the characterization that AB 2624 is aimed at Shirley or investigative journalism.

“This law has nothing to do with Nick Shirley,” a spokesman for the governor told The Post. “It allows immigration service providers to shield their personal information — such as their home address — to protect themselves from getting doxed and harassed.”

“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,” Diana Crofts-Pelayo claimed.

Shirley did not return the Post’s request for comment. He is scheduled to speak in Sacramento Wednesday.

Under the legislation, the expanded protections are scheduled to take effect Oct. 1, 2027. Until then, the fight is likely to continue far beyond Sacramento.

“This bill is a reaction to the uncovering of and publicity regarding massive public service fraud in Minnesota connected to the immigrant Somali community,” William A. Jacobson, founder of the Equal Protection Project, told The Post.

The clinical professor of law at Cornell Law School argued the legislation could have consequences beyond California’s privacy protections.

“The videos created in connection with journalistic exposure of the fraud captured the public’s attention and sparked law enforcement action,” he said. “California wants to shut that down by including immigrant services as a protected class who could not be subject to such journalism. But why? This has been dubbed the ‘Stop Nick Shirley Act,’ but it’s really the Stop Uncovering Fraud Act.”

Jacobson said the federal government could have an interest in the dispute because federal money is often involved in state and local programs.

He added: “This certainly is an issue DOJ may want to look into since arguably this new law interferes with policing of fraud using federal funds.”

Download The California Post App, follow us on social, and subscribe to our newsletters