What to know about the new California privacy law that became a flashpoint over free speech

Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed into law a measure expanding privacy protections to Californians who assist immigrants, a move aimed at shielding them from harassment and threats. The legislation, Assembly Bill 2624, allows immigration support services providers—including legal aid workers, counselors and volunteers—to enroll in the state’s Safe at Home program, which keeps their home addresses confidential.

The law, set to take effect on October 1, 2027, also prohibits individuals, businesses or associations from knowingly publishing the personal information of program participants—including their home addresses or images—online with the intent to incite violence against them. Violators could face civil fines of up to $4,000.

The expansion of the Safe at Home program reflects growing concerns among Democratic lawmakers about increased threats against immigrants and those who aid them. The program, originally established nearly 30 years ago to protect domestic violence victims, has since been extended to cover stalking, sexual assault and human trafficking survivors, as well as healthcare workers. Last year, eligibility was broadened to include gender-affirming healthcare providers.

To qualify, applicants must reside in California and demonstrate credible threats of violence, such as police reports or court documents. False information may result in misdemeanor charges. Once enrolled, participants receive a four-year identification card with an alternative mailing address, which state and local agencies must honor. Private entities and the federal government are not required to accept it.

The measure passed largely along party lines in the Legislature but received bipartisan support in Assembly committees. Supporters, including Attorney General Rob Bonta, argue that the law addresses real threats faced by immigration advocates. “No one should have to fear that doing their job will put their family at risk,” Bonta said during the final floor vote.

Opponents, including some Republican lawmakers and conservative activists, contend the law infringes on free speech protections. Carl DeMaio, a Republican assemblymember from San Diego, has vowed to challenge the law in court, calling it the “Stop Nick Shirley Act” and alleging it targets journalists investigating immigration-related fraud.

Nick Shirley, a social media influencer and vocal critic of the law, has claimed that the legislation creates a “protected class” of immigration support providers, limiting public scrutiny. At a rally outside the Capitol, Shirley and others argued that the law could obstruct investigations into alleged waste or fraud in immigrant services.

Republican candidate Jenny Rae Le Roux has pledged to defy the law, stating her intention to investigate government spending on immigration services. She claimed the measure’s language is overly broad and redundant, as incitement to violence is already illegal.

Proponents, including Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, dismiss these concerns, emphasizing that the law does not shield organizations from accountability. “The opposition to AB 2624 has not come from [news organizations],” Pellerin said. “It has come from bad faith actors looking for an available vehicle to smear immigrant communities and the people who serve them.”

The law’s implementation remains years away, but its passage underscores ongoing debates over privacy, free speech and the protection of vulnerable groups in California.