California Gov. Gavin Newsom signs AB 2624, expanding privacy protections for immigration “service” workers amid dispute over investigations

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 2624 into law on Saturday, a measure described in reporting as the “Stop Nick Shirley Act.” The legislation expands privacy protections for people involved in immigration-related “service” work, according to the coverage, and was signed despite warnings that it could chill investigative reporting and prompt First Amendment litigation.

The bill is referenced in the report as AB 2624. The reporting characterizes the measure as aimed at stopping investigations tied to alleged fraud involving immigration “service” providers, and it frames the change as narrowing how and whether investigators can pursue certain kinds of information about immigration “service” workers.

The reporting also says the law was approved alongside concerns from opponents who argue that increased privacy restrictions may interfere with the ability of journalists and others to examine potential wrongdoing. Those critics, as described in the coverage, expect constitutional challenges related to speech and press freedoms.

According to the same reporting, the bill was authored by staff associated with California Attorney General activity, with additional reporting attributing authorship through American Greatness. The coverage does not, in the provided record, supply the bill’s full text, specific statutory amendments, or the precise scope of the privacy protections.

The practical effect described in the coverage is that the new law would change the rules governing investigative efforts directed at immigration “service” providers and the people working in those roles. The reporting indicates the bill could reduce the ability of investigators to obtain or use information that would be covered by the expanded privacy protections.

The case for the law’s approach, as characterized in the coverage, rests on restricting privacy exposure for immigration “service” workers, while the counterargument focuses on the risk of suppressing investigative scrutiny. The reporting further indicates that opposition anticipates legal challenges under the First Amendment, although the provided record does not include court filings, a specific lawsuit, or a stated government defense strategy.