Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta
141 S. Ct. 2373
SCOTUS2021Background
- California requires charities that solicit in-state to register and annually file IRS Form 990, and the State’s regulation has required submission of Schedule B (major-donor names/addresses) to the Attorney General’s registry.
- Petitioners Americans for Prosperity Foundation and Thomas More Law Center declined to file unredacted Schedule Bs to protect donor anonymity; after California stepped up enforcement (threats of fines/suspension) they sued claiming First Amendment injury to donors and organizations.
- The district court preliminarily enjoined collection and after bench trials permanently enjoined the Attorney General from collecting petitioners’ Schedule Bs, finding Schedule Bs not integral to investigations and confidentiality unreliable.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, rejecting a narrow-tailoring requirement and holding that up-front collection advanced investigatory efficiency and that confidentiality protections mitigated associational burdens.
- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit: it held exacting scrutiny applies and requires narrow tailoring, found California’s blanket Schedule B collection not narrowly tailored to preventing charitable fraud (administrative convenience insufficient), and declared the disclosure regime facially unconstitutional as overbroad.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate level of review for compelled-association disclosures | Apply strict scrutiny (or at least exacting scrutiny with tight tailoring); compelled disclosure threatens donors' associational rights | Exacting scrutiny should be applied but need only a substantial relation; no separate narrow-tailoring requirement | Exacting scrutiny applies and requires narrow tailoring (though not necessarily least restrictive means) |
| Whether California’s Schedule B requirement is narrowly tailored to an important interest (preventing charitable fraud) | Not tailored: Schedule Bs are not integral to investigations; alternatives (subpoena/audit) suffice; collection chills donors | Tailoring satisfied: up-front collection improves investigative efficiency and aids enforcement | Not narrowly tailored; up-front universal collection is a dragnet for administrative convenience and fails exacting scrutiny |
| Facial overbreadth / availability of facial relief | Facial invalidation appropriate because a substantial number of applications chill association relative to the regulation’s legitimate sweep | Facial challenge fails; plaintiffs must show widespread concrete burdens and many donors are not chilled | Regulation is facially overbroad and therefore invalid in all applications because lack of tailoring makes every demand risk chilling association |
| Effect of confidentiality and IRS reporting on burden | Confidential submission still chills; past breaches and multiplicity of disclosure create real risk; IRS filing doesn’t eliminate additional chill | Confidential protections and existing IRS disclosure mean little or no added burden; State can safeguard data | Confidentiality does not eliminate the First Amendment burden; multiple government demands increase chilling risk |
Key Cases Cited
- NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) (compelled disclosure of membership lists can violate freedom of association when it risks reprisals)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (per curiam) (articulated “exacting scrutiny” for disclosure requirements: substantial relation to an important interest)
- Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479 (1960) (invalidated an overbroad disclosure law; government must pursue important interests by means narrowly tailored)
- Doe v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186 (2010) (applied exacting scrutiny to disclosure of referendum signatories and assessed burdens vs. governmental interests)
- McCutcheon v. Federal Election Comm’n, 572 U.S. 185 (2014) (explained that fit matters; even under less-than-strict scrutiny a reasonable, proportionate fit is required)
- United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010) (described the First Amendment overbreadth/facial-challenge framework)
- Secretary of State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson Co., 467 U.S. 947 (1984) (recognizes that indiscriminate disclosure can create an unnecessary risk of chilling association)