free speech

Nick Shirley Sues California for Squelching Freedom of the Press

Investigative journalist Nick Shirley, whose reporting exposed government waste, fraud and harmful immigration policies, filed a lawsuit challenging a California law that criminalizes publishing images of or personal information about immigration support services providers.

In a press release from America First Legal, which filed the complaint, Shirley questioned why the state was trying to impede investigations into California’s illegal immigration crisis and immigrant-related fraud:

Why create new laws that restrict the freedom of speech if you have nothing to hide? Now more than ever, the people deserve more transparency, not less. Freedom of speech is essential for a high-trust society.

America First Legal, working with John W. Howard of JW Howard Attorneys, explained the lawsuit in a press release:

The lawsuit challenges California Assembly Bill 2624, commonly known as the “Stop Nick Shirley Act” and recently signed into law, alleging it unlawfully targets journalists and citizens who investigate immigration-related organizations, in violation of the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution.

Shirley hit the spotlight in December 2025 when he posted a video alleging fraud at several Somali-run daycare centers in Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota. The video showed empty daycare and learning centers where the owners were receiving government funds.

Most famously, Shirley focused attention on the Quality Learing Center [sic], which became the object of widespread ridicule. The video, “I Investigated Minnesota’s Billion Dollar Fraud Scandal” has more than 4.2 million views on YouTube, where Shirley has almost two million subscribers. His YouTube videos have almost 370 million views.

After Shirley’s investigation into daycare and learning centers in the Twin Cities, CNN reported the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Federal Bureau of Investigation “ramped up their presence in the state, and federal funding for child care in the entire state was frozen.”

Government officials and legacy media outlets have condemned Shirley’s journalism, complained about exaggerated findings and questioned his accuracy. But he pointed to the fraud convictions that followed the release of his video and challenged reporters to go to the daycare and learning centers themselves.  

He makes a good point: Why aren’t mainstream reporters investigating fraud?

Shirley then shifted his focus to California. America First Legal detailed the timeline, noting that Shirley posted that he arrived in California on January 31 and released a video alleging voter fraud February 16.

Four days later, Assemblymember Mia Bonta introduced AB 2624, labeling it “Privacy for immigration support services providers.”

Because of the timing, however, and because he was investigating California’s migrant crisis, advocates for free speech called it the “Stop Nick Shirley Act.”

The bill was fast-tracked through the California Legislature and signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on August 26.

Bonta released a statement after the signing, saying the legislation “adds immigration support services providers to the state’s Safe at Home program, protecting these workers from targeted harassment and doxxing.”

The Safe at Home confidentiality program, passed in 1998, was originally designed to protect victims of domestic violence. It was later amended to include abortion providers and those socially or medically “transitioning” individuals with sexual identity confusion, using body-damaging puberty blockers, opposite-sex hormones and surgeries.

America First Legal’s lawsuit challenges amending the program to include immigration investigations. It’s press release explains some of the complaint’s allegations:

  • The statute is a content-based restriction on speech. Liability turns on whether the publication concerns a designated immigration support services provider or persons associated with such a provider.
  • The statute discriminates on the basis of viewpoint. It especially protects information concerning “immigration support services,” while imposing no comparable restriction on speech concerning organizations or individuals whose advocacy favors stronger immigration enforcement. 
  • The statute is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. Its open-ended definitions cover a substantial amount of protected journalism, political commentary, watchdog reporting and whistleblowing, and fail to give speakers fair notice of what is prohibited.

America First Legal President Gene Hamilton said of the case:

Nick Shirley is an American patriot. He has been exposing fraud that too many people have tolerated or facilitated for decades. California was so threatened by that work that the Attorney General’s own wife introduced a bill to silence Mr. Shirley, in violation of the First Amendment. Governor Gavin Newsom gladly signed it. This will not stand. America First Legal is proud to stand with Nick.

The case is Shirley v. Bonta.

Related articles and resources:

Border Crackdown Discourages ‘Fraudulent Families,’ Child Trafficking

CBS News Admits They Lost the Plot. Can They Fix Themselves?

Crackdown on Illegal Immigration Protects Children

From Nick Shirley:

I Investigated The California Migrant Crisis

I Investigated California’s Suspected Voter Fraud

I Investigated Minnesota’s Billion Dollar Fraud Scandal

Photo Credit: Nick Shirley via YouTube

Christian Counselor Brian Tingley Wins Free Speech Victory

For the first time in five years, Christian counselor Brian Tingley is free to counsel his clients without fear of legal penalties.

On Thursday, August 13, Washington state agreed not to enforce its counseling censorship law banning so-called “conversion therapy” against Tingley, a significant victory for free speech in the Evergreen State.

“There is an epidemic of mental health issues among young people today,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse. “They and their parents often come to Brian Tingley because they feel most comfortable with a counselor who shares their faith, yet the state prohibited these voluntary conversations.”

Widmalm-Delphonse added,

We’re pleased Washington has agreed that Mr. Tingley should be free to speak. It will allow young people to get the help they desperately need while his case proceeds.

Tingley is a licensed marriage and family therapist with over 20 years of experience helping both adult and minor clients. He engages solely in talk therapy: listening to clients, asking them questions and helping them pursue psychological and behavioral changes according to their desires and goals.

As a part of his practice, Tingley helps minor clients struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction and sexual identity confusion.

But in 2018, Washington state passed a law banning “conversion therapy” – prohibiting counselors from assisting clients “become more comfortable with [their] biological sex” or reduce same-sex attractions, thoughts, identities and behaviors.

Tingley fought back in federal court, filing a lawsuit in 2021, seeking to vindicate his constitutional rights. He is represented by attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom.

He argued the state’s law – requiring counselors speak only state-approved messages on homosexuality and transgenderism – violated the First Amendment.

Washington state isn’t the only government entity with such laws on the books; other states and localities have also enacted counseling speech codes. But thanks to a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, those laws are on a collision course with the U.S. Constitution.

In March, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Kaley Chiles, a Christian counselor, who sued over Colorado’s counseling censorship law, concluding the law violated the Constitution.

“The First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country,” Justice Gorsuch wrote for the majority.

“It reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth.”

Since Chiles, counseling censorship laws have fallen like dominoes in various court decisions across the country. The development in Tingley’s case represents yet another victory for Christian counselors.

Thanks to the new agreement, Tingley is now free to contribute to the marketplace of ideas until his case reaches a final settlement. That’s a victory for Tingley, his clients in need of help, and everyone’s free speech rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

The case is Tingley v. Brown.

If you or someone you know is struggling with homosexuality or transgenderism, Focus on the Family offers a one-time complimentary consultation with our ministry’s professionally trained counseling staff. The consultation is free due to generous donor support.

To reach Focus on the Family’s counseling service by phone, call 1-800-A-Family (232-6459) weekdays 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (Mountain Time). Please be prepared to leave your contact information for a counselor or chaplain to return a call to you as soon as possible. Alternatively, you can fill out our Counseling Consultation Request Form.

Related articles and resources:

What Is ‘Conversion Therapy’?

Counseling for Sexual Identity Concerns: A Measured, Careful, and Compassionate approach.

Court Revives Lawsuit Challenging Washington’s Counseling Censorship Law

Washington Counselor Asks Court to Protect Free Speech

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Counseling Censorship Case

Christian Counselor Sues for Right to Talk to Minors About Same-Sex Attraction, Gender Identity Issues

Photo from Alliance Defending Freedom.

Texas Conservative Activist Sues School District After Removal From Board Meeting

A conservative activist from Texas is suing the Houston Independent School District (HISD) after removing her from a board meeting for reading sexually explicit passages from a book available to students in the districts’ school libraries. 

Bonnie Wallace, a member of Protecting Texas Children and a resident of Texas Hill County, has repeatedly attempted to raise awareness about the abundance of inappropriate material readily available to minors in Texas public school libraries. 

Footage from a March HISD board meeting shows Wallace during public comment, announcing she would be reading from one of the “500 filthy books” on HISD library shelves. 

“If there’s children in the audience, they need to leave,” said Wallace. 

Board Vice President Angela Lemond Flowers promptly interrupted Wallace, saying, “You will not be allowed to read things that are not appropriate.”

“Oh, not appropriate?” said Wallace. “Then why are they in your schools?” 

Wallace began reading a direct passage from A Court of Silver Flames by Sarah J. Maas, the fifth installment in the A Court of Thorns and Roses series – adult fantasy books widely known for their graphic sexual content. Focus on the Family’s “Plugged In” writes of another book in the ACOTAR series: 

The sex depicted is graphic and explicit and the conversations about sex are crude. … The acts are described in detail. … The banter between [characters] is sexually graphic.

A Court of Silver Flames also includes descriptions of violence, gore, past abuse, depression and self-loathing. 

As Wallace read the sexually explicit passage aloud, Flowers warned twice that she would be removed from the meeting if she continued reading the material. 

“If you don’t like it, remove it so that children don’t have access to it,” said Wallace before taking her seat. She was immediately escorted from the meeting by police. 

Wallace has since sued HISD for violating her First Amendment rights. The suit reads:

This was textbook viewpoint discrimination: HISD silenced Ms. Wallace precisely because she demonstrated the hypocrisy of its own policies, proving that if the content was too explicit for adults, it was too explicit for children. Such conduct is “an egregious form” of content regulation that the First Amendment almost never tolerates.

HISD filed a motion in July to dismiss Wallace’s case, claiming the lawsuit “identifies no authority requiring the presiding officer to permit the live oral recitation of sexually graphic passages in such a forum under those circumstances.” 

The HISD motion also cited 2 U.S. Supreme Court Decisions which asserted “the State’s substantial interest in protecting minors from exposure to sexually explicit material.”

Wallace responded in a statement saying: 

HISD claiming they had authority to remove me because I was reciting sexually explicit passages is such hypocrisy. They evidently thought the book was wildly inappropriate. I agree that this book, and thousands of others, are wildly inappropriate for minors. But HISD should explain why they squandered taxpayer dollars on this sexually explicit content and are now retaining it so minors continue to have access to it.
Their request to have the lawsuit dismissed by stating they want to protect minors from exposure to sexually explicit material is HILARIOUS! I guess they only want to protect minors from sexually explicit content during HISD school board meetings but not in HISD libraries!

Wallace and her attorneys have repeatedly referenced her warning that any children present needed to leave the meeting before she began reading from A Court of Silver Flames.

Corey DeAngelis, a research fellow for the Center for Education Policy at The Heritage Foundation, commented:

Houston ISD removed a parent from a public meeting for reading aloud from a sexually explicit book that the district itself has placed in school libraries including those accessible to elementary, middle, and high school students.
The school board doesn’t want the public to hear the material they’re giving kids. That tells you everything you need to know about their priorities.

In 2023, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed House Bill 900 – the READER Act. The legislation outlined standards for school library materials across Texas, including specific requirements regarding sexually explicit literature.

Abbott’s press secretary, Andrew Mahaleris, stated:

Sexually explicit material has no place in Texas public school libraries.
The Governor expects every school district to follow state law.

However, Wallace claims she has found over 2,100 inappropriate books across Texas public school libraries, and that HISD carries almost all of those books. 

She has repeatedly attempted to raise awareness about this problem by voicing concerns in school board meetings and to individual parents. The Protecting Texas Children’s social media pages feature videos of Wallace showing parents shocking samples of inappropriate literature available in public school libraries. 

Wallace’s case is scheduled for trial on September 13, 2027 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. 

Please join Daily Citizen in prayer for Bonnie Wallace and the important work she is doing to protect America’s children from inappropriate, explicit material. 

Related articles and resources:

Is it ‘Book Banning’ to Keep Sexually Explicit Books out of Schools?

Three Ways the Media Supports Sexually Explicit, Inappropriate Books for Children

Liberal Father Seeks to Disprove Concerns Over Sexually Explicit Books in Schools, Becomes Convinced These Books Are Not for Children

Sexualizing Schoolchildren: Classroom and Library Books

Court Revives Lawsuit Challenging Washington’s Counseling Censorship Law

A federal court reopened Christian counselor Brian Tingley’s case challenging Washington’s counseling censorship law.

“This isn’t just a vindication for Brian. It’s a ray of hope for counselors, kids, and families in Washington state,” Kristen Waggoner, president and CEO of Alliance Defending Freedom, wrote on X.

“Kids with gender distress deserve compassionate, professional care – not a one-way counseling script mandated by the state.”

Tingley, a licensed marriage and family therapist, helps both adult and minor clients facing myriad issues by providing simple talk therapy. He asks questions, listens empathetically and offers suggestions to those struggling.

As a Christian, Tingley believes God made human beings male or female, every person should seek to identify with their sexual identity, and marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Tingley regular helps Christian clients struggling with “transgenderism” or unwanted same-sex attraction. He helps them work towards their goals of “becom[ing] more comfortable with [their] biological sex” or “reducing [same-sex] attractions [to] … live in a manner consistent with … their Christian faith.”

In 2018, however, Washington enacted a law banning counselors from providing this kind of therapy – wrongly termed “conversion therapy” – for minor clients.

Tingley filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent enforcement of Washington’s law in 2021. After a district court dismissed his case, Tingley appealed all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court which declined to take up his case in 2023.

However, in March 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Kaley Chiles, a licensed Christian counselor in Colorado, and against an essentially identical Colorado counseling censorship law.

Colorado’s law banned “conversion therapy” for minors, prohibiting Chiles, and all counselors, from helping minor clients seeking hope and healing from unwanted sexual identity confusion and same-sex attraction.

Under Colorado’s law, counselors were allowed to speak only state-approved messages encouraging clients to embrace homosexual thoughts, feelings and behaviors, or a new “gender identity” different from their biological sex.

This kind of viewpoint discrimination – where the state picks and chooses which messages individuals can express – runs afoul of the First Amendment’s free speech clause, the Court concluded.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the Court’s majority, said laws like Colorado’s “represent ‘an egregious form of content discrimination’ where First Amendment concerns are at their most ‘blatant.’”

He added,

The First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.

Following the Court’s ruling in Chiles, Tingley asked a Washington district court to reopen his case. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington has now agreed to do so.

“There is an epidemic of mental health issues among young people today,” said ADF Senior Counsel Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse, who added,

They and their parents often come to Brian Tingley because they feel most comfortable with a counselor who shares their faith, yet the state prohibited these voluntary conversations.

Tingley isn’t the only Christian counselor whose lawsuit has received new life following Chiles.

Michigan has agreed to stop censoring counselors who provide talk therapy for minors; two Missouri Christian counselors’ case will be reheard; and Oregon counselor Frank Canepa had a $90,000 fine against him withdrawn.

All individuals seeking hope and healing in Christ should be able to find assistance with a counselor. Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Chiles v. Salazar, the dominos against counseling censorship laws are starting to fall nationwide. Let’s hope and pray that continues.

If you or someone you know is struggling with homosexuality or transgenderism, Focus on the Family offers a one-time complimentary consultation with our ministry’s professionally trained counseling staff. The consultation is free due to generous donor support.

To reach Focus on the Family’s counseling service by phone, call 1-800-A-Family (232-6459) weekdays 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (Mountain Time). Please be prepared to leave your contact information for a counselor or chaplain to return a call to you as soon as possible. Alternatively, you can fill out our Counseling Consultation Request Form.

Related articles and resources:

Michigan Ends Unconstitutional Ban on Talk Therapy for Sexually Confused Minors

Appeals Court Reverses Decision Against Christian Counselors

Oregon Withdraws $90K Fine Against Christian Counselor

Washington Counselor Asks Court to Protect Free Speech

The Supreme Court’s ‘Conversion Therapy’ Ruling: Four Truths You Should Know

Supreme Court Smacks Down Colorado’s ‘Conversion Therapy’ Ban in 8-1 Decision

Photo from Alliance Defending Freedom.

YAF Sues University of Minnesota Over Forced ‘Transgender’ Speech Codes

Young America’s Foundation (YAF) filed a lawsuit against the University of Minnesota (UMN) over policies that keep students from questioning “transgender” ideology and force them to use transgender-identified individual’s “chosen pronouns” – rather than language that reflects biological reality.

YAF is the parent organization of Young Americans for Freedom, which has chapters on 213 college and university campuses, as well as 228 high school groups. The conservative non-profit has a mission to ensure “that increasing numbers of young Americans understand and are inspired by the ideas of individual freedom, a strong national defense, free enterprise, and traditional values.”

Traditional values include, the complaint states, truths like:

  • Men should not compete in women’s sports or use their bathrooms.
  • There are only two genders.
  • Sex is immutable.
  • Sex is immutable.
  • A man cannot get pregnant.
  • A man cannot become a woman, and a woman cannot become a man.

But UMN policies keep students afraid to discuss these issues and invite YAF speakers – like Ryan T. Anderson, Chloe Cole, Seth Dillon and Ben Shapiro – who oppose transgender dogma and indoctrination.

Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF) filed the lawsuit June 19 on YAF’s behalf, explaining in a press release that policies which only allow students to agree with and express gender ideology violate students’ First Amendment rights.

The complaint points to UMN sexual harassment and discrimination policies that require agreement with transgender ideology and language. Anyone who feels “offended” by a YAF members’ speech can file a formal or anonymous complaint – which could lead to disciplinary action, including dismissal from the university.

In addition, the university policy “Equity and Access: Gender Identity, Gender Expression, Names and Pronouns,” states:

University members may, without being required to provide documentation: use a chosen name that differs from the name listed on their legal documents, use a gender identity that differs from their legal sex and/or sex assigned at birth, and/or specify the pronouns and other gendered personal references (e.g., Ms., Mx., Mr.) used to refer to them.

The rule goes on to state requirements for all students, staff, faculty, guests, contractors and volunteers:

University members and units are expected to use the names, gender identities, and pronouns specified to them by other University members, except as legally required. … University members and units are also expected to use other gendered personal references, if any, that are consistent with the gender identities and pronouns specified by University members.

The “Equity and Access” policy gives this definition of gender identity, which is a completely subjective societal and individual construct:

An individual’s own understanding of themselves in terms of gendered categories that may include female, male, transgender, genderqueer, genderfluid, gender nonconforming, Two Spirit, intersex, non-binary, agender, genderless, and many others. Gender identity cannot be reliably determined by looking at an individual. An individual’s gender identity may be consistent over their lifetime or may shift over time.

Evidently there’s equity or access for everyone at UMN – except for those who believe biblical and scientific truth about sex and sexual identity.

SLF President Kim Hermann said of the policies:

These students have to walk on eggshells while engaging with these topics, making sure to not voice opinions different from that of the school, or not use biologically correct pronouns of people, in fear of school disciplinary actions. It sounds to me like the school wants to be a safe place for some students but not all.

The nonprofit legal group, which works to protect constitutional rights, stated:

While the University attempts to justify the policies by saying that speech expressing traditional views based in biology on gender identity offends its hearers, the First Amendment does not allow universities, of all places, to restrict student speech just because someone may not agree or like it.

SLF and YAF argue that these policies are pure viewpoint discrimination, where students are afraid to speak about their views publicly, in fear that they will face severe discipline from the school.

YAF President Governor Scott Walker commented on the lawsuit, saying:

The fact that there are any universities in the US attempting to suppress certain views that they deem wrong is a complete outrage. While students at the University of Minnesota should just have to worry about their classwork, they now also have to worry about violating these policies that are infringing on their rights to speak freely. Not only is this unfair to students, and particularly conservative students, but it’s completely unconstitutional.

The Daily Citizen hopes Young America’s Foundation is successful with returning free speech and academic debate to the University of Minnesota.

Related articles and resources:

Chloe Cole: Transgender Surgery Regret

God’s Amazing Grace in a Transgendered Person’s Life

The Journey Back to My True Identity

Oregon School District Pays $650,000 for Firing Teachers Opposed to ‘Trans’ Policy

Teacher Wins $650,000 After Being Fired for Refusing to Use ‘Trans’ Pronouns

Teacher Wrongly Fired for Refusing to Use ‘Preferred Pronouns’ Wins $575,000

Transgender Resources

Free Speech Victory for Virginia Teacher Fired Over ‘Transgender’ Pronoun Policy