Californians who provide legal help, counseling or other assistance to immigrants will soon have access to a state privacy program designed to shield their home addresses from public view, under a new law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom that has ignited a fierce debate over free speech.
The measure, which takes effect Oct. 1, 2027, expands California’s long-running Safe at Home program to cover immigration support workers, following what Democratic lawmakers describe as a troubling increase in harassment and threats directed at immigrants and the advocates who assist them.
For Inland Empire residents who work in immigrant services — from legal aid attorneys to nonprofit volunteers — the change could offer new protections. But the law has also become a flashpoint in a broader political fight, with Republican critics arguing it tramples on constitutional free press protections.
Tensions boiled over last week in Sacramento, where Terry Schanz, chief of staff for Assemblymember Tina McKinnor, got into a heated, recorded confrontation outside the state Capitol with Nick Shirley, a conservative social media personality and vocal opponent of the legislation. In the exchange, which quickly spread across social media, Schanz hurled a crude insult at Shirley. Assembly officials have declined to say whether Schanz will face any disciplinary action.
What the law actually does
The legislation, Assembly Bill 2624, allows immigration support workers, employees and volunteers to enroll in California’s Safe at Home program. Enrollees — along with family members living in their household — can use an alternative mailing address issued through the California secretary of state’s office instead of disclosing their actual home address in public records. Participants are also permitted to vote confidentially.
The law further bars any “person, business, or association” from knowingly publishing online the home address, photograph or personal information of a program participant, or their spouse or child, with the intent of inciting someone else to cause serious physical harm. Violators could face civil penalties of up to $4,000.
Assemblymember Mia Bonta, who championed the bill, said the protections respond to real cases of intimidation.
“We heard directly from organizations whose staff and volunteers have been doxxed, harassed, followed and filmed at their workplaces and threatened, with that harassment sometimes reaching their families at home,” Bonta said during the bill’s final vote in the Legislature last week. “These are not hypothetical concerns. No one should have to fear that doing their job will put their family at risk.”
A program with a long history
California created Safe at Home nearly three decades ago to protect the identities of domestic violence survivors. Since then, lawmakers have steadily broadened who qualifies, adding survivors of stalking, sexual assault, human trafficking and elder abuse, as well as reproductive health care workers and, during the pandemic, public health officials.
Last year, the state extended the program to workers in gender-affirming care, using similar language barring the public posting of their addresses or personal details. That measure also passed largely along party lines, though it picked up some bipartisan support in committee votes.
How to enroll
To participate, applicants must live in California and schedule an appointment with a designated enrolling agency, where they’ll work with an application assistant to complete the paperwork. Applicants need to show evidence of credible threats — such as police reports or court records — and submitting false information is a misdemeanor.
Once the secretary of state’s Safe at Home program approves an application, participants receive an official ID card bearing their substitute address, which state and local government agencies are required to accept. Private businesses and the federal government, however, are not obligated to honor it. Enrollment lasts four years and can be renewed.
Republican pushback
Opposition from Republican lawmakers has been intense, with some vowing to challenge the law in court on First Amendment grounds. Assemblymember Carl DeMaio of San Diego, one of the law’s most vocal critics, has branded it the “Stop Nick Shirley Act,” claiming its real intent is to shield organizations from scrutiny by journalists and investigators like Shirley.
Shirley has built a following by investigating alleged fraud at child care centers, including a 2025 video accusing Minnesota facilities of wrongdoing that preceded a surge in federal immigration enforcement there. He also visited several Somali-run day care centers in San Diego this past February, alleging they were “ghost facilities” without children actually present.
“They’ve essentially created a protected class by calling this group — the immigration support service providers — saying that I and you cannot expose them,” Shirley told supporters at a rally outside the Capitol last week. “None of our money should be going towards illegal migrants, nor should it be going towards the nonprofits that are funded by your tax dollars.”
Jenny Rae Le Roux, a Republican running for California’s 47th Congressional District, called the law unnecessary, noting that inciting violence is already illegal. She also criticized the bill’s wording — including its use of the term “image” — as overly vague. Le Roux said she intends to keep investigating government spending regardless of the new restrictions, even inviting arrest under the statute.
“We will double down on our efforts … to expose waste, fraud and corruption wherever we find it, including immigration service providers,” she said at the rally. “And if Gavin Newsom doesn’t like it, he can come arrest me himself.”
Supporters of the bill reject the idea that it protects organizations from legitimate oversight. Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, a Santa Cruz Democrat who backed the measure, noted that no news organization has formally opposed the law.
“The opposition to AB 2624 has not come from them,” Pellerin said during the floor debate. “It has come from bad faith actors looking for an available vehicle to smear immigrant communities and the people who serve them.”
Original source: CalMatters
