In summary
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law expanding privacy protections to people who work with immigrants. Republicans characterized it as a threat to the First Amendment.
Starting next year, Californians who provide legal aid, counseling or other types of assistance to immigrants will be eligible for a privacy program that keeps their addresses confidential and out of public records.
Gov. Gavin Newsom approved this latest expansion of California’s Safe at Home program amid concern among Democratic legislators of a rise in reported harassment and threats against immigrants and immigration advocates.
Some Republican lawmakers fiercely opposed the measure, arguing that it stifles constitutional protections of a free press. The dispute came to a head last week in a verbal altercation involving Terry Schanz, the chief of staff of Democratic Assemblymember Tina McKinnor, and Nick Shirley, a conservative social media influencer and outspoken critic of the new law.
In a recording distributed widely on social media, Schanz confronted Shirley outside of the state Capitol and accused Shirley of having a small penis. Officials from the Assembly would not comment on whether Schanz could face discipline over the exchange.
The law goes into effect Oct. 1, 2027. Here’s what you need to know:
What does the privacy law do?
Under the new law — Assembly Bill 2624 — immigration support services providers, employees and volunteers can enroll in the state’s Safe at Home Program. The program lets participants, and family members in their households, keep their home addresses confidential and out of public records by providing an alternative mailing address through the California secretary of state. Participants can also vote confidentially.
The law also prohibits a “person, business, or association” from knowingly posting on the internet the address, image or personal information of program participants (as well as their spouse or child) with the intent to “incite a third person to cause imminent great bodily harm to those individuals.”
A person found in violation of the law could be fined $4,000 in civil damages.
“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,” said Bonta during the measure’s final floor 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.”
What is the Safe at Home program?
California’s Safe at Home program was established nearly 30 years ago to protect the identities of domestic violence victims. Since then, the state expanded eligibility to include victims of stalking, sexual assault, human trafficking and elder abuse, as well as to people who work in reproductive healthcare and, during the COVID-19 pandemic, public health officials.
Last year, California passed a law expanding it to people who work in gender-affirming healthcare. That law also includes similar provisions prohibiting people from knowingly posting on the internet images or personal information of program participants.
Though the bill advanced through the Legislature mostly on a party-line vote, it received bipartisan support in the Assembly’s public safety and judiciary committees, and two Republican lawmakers voted for it in its initial floor vote in the Assembly.
How can I enroll in it?
Individuals must reside in California and make an appointment with a designated enrolling agency, where they will meet with an application assistant and complete the application process. During this process, potential participants must provide evidence that they have received credible threats of violence — which can include police reports or court documents. Submitting false information may result in a misdemeanor.
Application materials are then sent to and reviewed by the Safe at Home program. Once approved, applicants receive an official identification card for business or public use, which includes the alternative mailing address. By law, state and local agencies must accept the address on this ID card, but private entities, businesses and the federal government are not required to honor it.
Enrollment is good for four years with the option to renew afterward.
Why did Republicans vote against the law?
Republican legislators and other conservatives are threatening to challenge the law in court, saying it violates the First Amendment. GOP Assemblymember Carl DeMaio of San Diego, one of the biggest opponents of the legislation, dubbed it the “Stop Nick Shirley Act,” alleging that its true purpose is to intimidate journalists like Shirley, and limit their ability to investigate organizations for fraud, waste and abuse.
In 2025, one of Shirley’s videos accused child care centers in Minnesota of widespread fraud, preceding a wave of federal immigration enforcement activity in the state. He also visited several Somali-run day care centers in San Diego in February, where he claimed owners of running “ghost facilities” with no children 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 said during a rally Wednesday outside the state Capitol in Sacramento.
“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 candidate for California’s 47th congressional district, said the law is redundant because it’s already illegal to incite violence. Its language, like the use of the word “image,” is also too overly broad.
Le Roux said she wants to be the first person arrested or fined under the law as she pledges to investigate government spending.
“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.”
Bonta disagrees with this characterization, saying that the law does not shield organizations from accountability or public scrutiny. Assemblymember Gail Pellerin, a Santa Cruz Democrat and proponent of the law, also pointed out during the floor vote that no news organization has come out to challenge the measure.
“The opposition to AB 2624 has not come from them,” Pellerin said. “It has come from bad faith actors looking for an available vehicle to smear immigrant communities and the people who serve them.”
