California’s state Assembly passed the “Stop Nick Shirley Act” on Tuesday, and yet, Nick Shirley is still out here filming.
The Dallas Express covered the legislation in April, when the Assembly Judiciary Committee advanced the bill 11-2. At the time, Republican Assemblymember Carl DeMaio gave it the nickname that has since stuck, warning the legislation was designed not to protect vulnerable workers, but to silence independent journalists.
“AB 2624 can only be described as the ‘Stop Nick Shirley Act’ – a bill designed to silence citizen journalists exposing fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars,” DeMaio said at the time.
“If this bill becomes law, the message is clear to every journalist in California: expose corruption and you will be punished,” DeMaio continued.
Now that the full Assembly has passed the Act 57-19, DeMaio’s warning is no longer hypothetical.
What the Bill Does
Introduced by Assembly member Mia Bonta (D-Alameda), AB 2624 extends California’s existing Safe at Home privacy program – previously covering domestic violence and trafficking victims – to employees and volunteers of immigration service organizations.
Under the bill’s text, it would ban anyone from posting on the internet the personal information or image of an immigration support services provider, their employees, volunteers, or individuals living at the same address.
However, critics – like Shirley – worry that the bill’s wording is narrower than it seems.
In reality, it could cover a wide range of nonprofits, NGOs, and health care facilities that receive taxpayer money.
If passed, these groups could be protected from on-the-ground video investigations. Those who violate the rules – and try to independently investigate fraud against those groups – could face civil lawsuits starting at $4,000 per violation, plus possible criminal penalties of up to $10,000 in fines or one year in county jail.
“This bill would have made it criminal to expose fake hospices in LA or the Somali ‘learing center’ in Minnesota if they then claim ‘reasonable fear’ and the business owner gives a written demand not to post the video,” Shirley posted to X on May 26. “Plain and simple, California is trying to make it harder to expose fraud and scare individuals from investigating fraud in their communities, as they could be sued for an injunction to remove the video + forced to pay their attorney fees + minimum $4,000 in damages.”
“The Attorney General’s wife, Mia Bonta, created this bill and is now trying to make it law. How is this not a conflict of interest?” Shirley asked.
Shirley’s viral videos have documented what he and federal prosecutors say is rampant fraud in government-funded programs. After exposing suspected daycare fraud in Minnesota, Shirley turned his camera toward California. His team documented over $170 million in suspected fraud involving hospice operations, capturing footage of owners and operators allegedly profiting lavishly from schemes billing Medicare for patients who were not terminally ill.
That journalism led to real consequences. Federal prosecutors launched “Operation Never Say Die,” charging over a dozen people in a $50+ million Medicare hospice scheme, while arresting eight others for high-level healthcare fraud in California.
In other words, the footage worked, helping to expose mass fraud. Now, California Democrats have passed a law that could make that footage illegal.
The Conflict of Interest
The bill’s passage is raising questions about a conflict of interest. The author of the bill, Assembly member Bonta, is married to California Attorney General Rob Bonta. His office worked with federal prosecutors on “Operation Never Say Die” – the same crackdown that targeted the kind of organizations her bill would now protect from independent journalism or investigations.
Even if there’s no direct coordination between the husband and wife behind the scenes, the optics are tough to ignore.
The Response
Not everyone sees the bill as an attack on free speech or independent journalism. Assemblymember LaShae Sharp-Collins (D) defended the measure on the Assembly floor in late April, saying “this is not a game” and arguing the legislation protects against what she characterized as harassment of immigrant communities.
Bonta herself dismissed criticism of the bill as “MAGA misinformation,” saying in a press release published on April 14 that “under my bill, there are no provisions related to journalism or fraud” and insisting the legislation does not infringe on the First Amendment.
However, groups like the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) have raised concerns about the bill’s potential overreach and its chilling effect on citizen journalists.
“The bill includes a carve-out for journalists, but it could still be used to censor newsworthy information about immigration organizations,” FIRE reported.
