California's New Privacy Law (AB 2624) Is Censorious Overreach That Exemplifies Democrat Governance Failure
Source: Chris Bray. "The 'Stop Nick Shirley Act' Is About CA's Descent Into Impotence." August 28, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues that a new California law, nicknamed the 'Stop Nick Shirley Act,' is a sneaky attempt to make it illegal to publicly name people who work with immigration NGOs, which would effectively silence journalists who investigate them. He claims this fits a broader pattern where California Democrats, unable to actually govern well (citing a stalled high-speed rail project and a repainted crosswalk over crumbling pavement), try to cover up their failures by attacking and criminalizing their critics instead.
Conclusion
AB 2624 (dubbed the 'Stop Nick Shirley Act') is a First Amendment-threatening law designed to criminalize journalism and criticism of Democrat-aligned immigration NGOs, and it exemplifies the broader incompetence and bad faith of California's Democratic leadership.
Premises
- AB 2624 makes it illegal to publicly post or distribute the personal information or image of designated 'immigration support services providers,' effectively criminalizing naming or identifying such individuals even in legitimate journalism or investigation.
- The law's added 'intent' language (requiring intent to harass) is a thin, unconvincing attempt to make an otherwise unconstitutional law survive judicial scrutiny.
- Even if the law is ultimately struck down or unenforceable, the mere threat of prosecution functions as a punishment via legal process, chilling speech and journalism.
- California Democrats' official denial that the law targets Nick Shirley specifically is a deceptive act of omission, since the law's practical effect still constrains his and similar journalists' reporting.
- The law exemplifies a pattern of California Democrats being unable to accomplish substantive governance (citing the stalled high-speed rail project and a Los Angeles crosswalk repainted without underlying infrastructure repair as evidence).
- Because Democrats cannot deliver competent governance, they compensate by seeking to suppress criticism and control narratives, which explains their impulse to criminalize speech about their allies.
Assumptions
- That the law's primary or sole purpose is to protect corrupt patron-client relationships between Democrats and NGOs, rather than a genuine privacy/safety concern for immigration workers.
- That California Democrats as a group are uniformly incompetent and acting in bad faith, rather than having mixed or genuine policy motivations.
- That the high-speed rail delays and the crosswalk incident are representative examples of governance generally, rather than isolated or explainable failures.
- That an unenforceable or likely-unconstitutional law still constitutes a meaningful and intentional threat, implying legislative intent to chill speech rather than a hastily drafted or good-faith attempt to protect NGO workers from harassment/doxxing.
- That the connection between government incompetence and the impulse to suppress criticism is causal rather than coincidental.