Americans for Prosperity Found v. Kamala Harris
809 F.3d 536
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- California’s Charitable Purposes Act requires the Attorney General to maintain a Registry of Charitable Trusts and to obtain information needed for enforcement, including IRS Form 990 Schedule B.
- Schedule B lists donors giving $5,000+ and is submitted annually to the Registry as a condition of charity registration to solicit donations in California.
- Attorney General treats Schedule B as confidential and has no stated public-disclosure interest, distinguishing this regime from public-records regimes in elections.
- Plaintiffs Americans for Prosperity Foundation and Thomas More Law Center challenge the nonpublic disclosure requirement as burdening First Amendment rights by deterring donors.
- The district court issued preliminary injunctions prohibiting demand/collection of Schedule B forms pending merits; the Ninth Circuit vacates and remands to permit collection but enjoin public disclosure.
- Court’s disposition centers on whether collection to enforce laws causes First Amendment injury and whether public disclosure is permissible pending trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there a First Amendment injury from the Attorney General’s collection of Schedule B for nonpublic use? | AFP Foundation and TMLC argue collection chills donors. | Harris contends collection serves enforcement; no compelled disclosure injury. | No actual burden shown; district court abused by enjoining collection. |
| May Schedule B information be publicly disclosed despite the Attorney General’s policy? | Public disclosure harms donors and constitutional rights. | Policy against public disclosure should be respected; CPRA concerns unresolved. | Public-disclosure injunction sustained; district court not shown abuse in enjoining public release. |
Key Cases Cited
- Center for Competitive Politics v. Harris, 784 F.3d 1307 (9th Cir. 2015) (facially constitutional nonpublic Schedule B regime; exacting scrutiny applied to ensure burden matches government interest)
- John Doe No. 1 v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186 (2010) (public disclosure serves informing the electorate; public-records considerations)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (public-disclosure regimes in electoral politics)
- Family PAC v. McKenna, 685 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 2012) (transparency vs. confidentiality in political donations)
- Brown v. Socialist Workers’ ’74 Campaign Comm., 459 U.S. 87 (1982) (historical harassment considerations in First Amendment challenges)
- Park Village Apartment Tenants Ass’n v. Mortimer Howard Trust, 636 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard for preliminary injunctions and burden of proof)