California’s ‘Stop Nick Shirley’ Act: A Bill of Attainder Against a Fraud Exposer

California has once again found a creative way to sidestep the U.S. Constitution, according to a new commentary in American Thinker. The state’s latest maneuver is AB-2624, dubbed the “Stop Nick Shirley” act, which was recently signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom. The law is aimed squarely at Shirley, a private investigator whose work has exposed widespread fraud involving immigration activists, health care, and education in both Minnesota and California.

Shirley’s investigations, as described in the American Thinker piece by J.R. Dunn, took him from office to clinic to “learning center,” uncovering dozens of operations that were essentially fronts for funneling millions—sometimes tens of millions—from government programs into the pockets of various con artists, many of them illegal immigrants. The total amount uncovered so far is staggering: nearly $230 billion.

The U.S. Department of Justice has launched investigations into the Minnesota allegations, which largely involve Somali nationals, some with ties to Rep. Ilhan Omar. Those inquiries have reportedly seen early successes. But in California, the approach has been markedly different.

Targeting the Whistleblower, Not the Fraud

Instead of going after the fraudsters, California’s Democratic leadership has chosen to target the man who was trying to expose them. The mental gymnastics required to justify this, Dunn notes, were no challenge: the fraudsters have been recast as victims.

Assemblywoman Mia Bonta, the author of AB-2624, framed the issue in emotional terms: “This is a very scary time. Right now, our immigrant service providers are living in fear, because of the work that they do.” Bonta, notably, is married to California Attorney General Rob Bonta—a fact that Dunn treats as more than coincidence, though he doesn’t elaborate on any direct connection beyond the familial bond.

The law itself is simplicity itself: it outlaws the publication of addresses of “immigrant service providers.” But as Dunn points out, the term is dangerously vague. What exactly constitutes an “immigration service provider”? The bill doesn’t clarify, and Dunn suspects it could apply to anyone with any connection to immigration—even though many of the con artists Shirley exposed were not directly involved in immigration at all. Similarly, “publication” is undefined, leaving room for interpretation that could criminalize a wide range of speech.

A Modern-Day Bill of Attainder?

Dunn draws a historical parallel to the Bill of Attainder, a legislative act used in monarchies to punish critics of the crown. The U.S. Constitution explicitly bans such measures in Article I, Section 9, Clause 3. Yet AB-2624, in its targeting of Shirley as an individual, appears to be exactly that—a law designed to silence one person’s speech.

This is not the first time such rhetoric has been used. Dunn recalls the FACE Act (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances), which was passed under the guise of stopping activists from “bothering pregnant women” but evolved into a tool that justified arrests of people praying near clinics. He sees a similar pattern here: using broad, sympathy-inducing language to justify restrictions on speech and assembly.

The left, Dunn argues, is unable to win political arguments on the merits, so it falls back on “sleaze tactics.” He suggests the desperation to stop Shirley may stem from Democratic politicians getting a cut of the proceeds from these frauds, citing Minnesota, USAID, and other scams as examples.

Calls for Federal Intervention

Republican state Rep. Carl DeMaio has called on the Justice Department to step in, but Dunn notes that federal intervention will take time, and the DOJ has its hands full. In the meantime, he offers a suggestion for Shirley: double down. Continue knocking on doors, questioning shady “immigration service providers,” publicizing the results, and challenging California to do something about it. Dunn believes the state will back down, questioning whether Newsom would risk being seen as a “West Coast Big Brother” while eyeing a presidential run in 2028.

The piece concludes with a broader warning about the importance of free speech, arguing that the ability to speak one’s mind is crucial to the republic.

Whether AB-2624 ultimately holds up to constitutional scrutiny remains to be seen. But the debate over its implications—whether it’s a legitimate consumer protection measure or a thinly veiled attack on a whistleblower—is likely to continue. As with many California laws, the intent may be debatable, but the chilling effect on speech is all too real.

Source: www.americanthinker.com — https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/08/beating-the-stop-nick-shirley-act/