Center for Competitive Politic v. Kamala Harris
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 7239
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- CCP, a §501(c)(3) nonprofit, solicits donations nationally and has been registered with California’s Registry of Charitable Trusts since 2008; California requires registrants to file Form 990 including unredacted Schedule B (donor names for large donors).
- Historically CCP filed redacted Schedule Bs; in 2014 California’s Attorney General (Harris) required CCP to file an unredacted Schedule B, prompting this §1983 suit seeking a preliminary injunction.
- CCP argued the required disclosure violated its and its donors’ First Amendment freedom of association and that federal tax law (26 U.S.C. §6104) preempts the state requirement.
- The Attorney General defended the requirement as necessary for enforcement of state charitable‑organization laws (detecting self‑dealing, inflated in‑kind donations), and represented Schedule B is kept confidential within the AG’s office.
- The district court denied a preliminary injunction; on appeal the Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo legal issues and for abuse of discretion the preliminary injunction denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether compelled disclosure of Schedule B itself (facial challenge) injures First Amendment association rights | Disclosure, even to the AG, inherently chills association and thus is a First Amendment injury requiring strict/narrow scrutiny | Disclosure does not itself create an "actual burden" absent evidence of threats, harassment, or government misuse; exacting scrutiny applies and requires showing of substantial relation to important interest | Rejected: plaintiff failed to show an actual burden; facial challenge fails under exacting scrutiny |
| Whether the disclosure requirement is narrowly tailored / sufficiently related to government interest | Requirement is overbroad and AG should use subpoenas, not blanket Schedule B collection | AG’s routine access advances important interests (investigative efficiency; enforcement); modest burdens attend disclosure | Rejected: disclosure bears substantial relation to important law‑enforcement interests; facial overbreadth not shown |
| Whether confidentiality (non‑public) makes burden greater or speculative fears suffice | Risk of inadvertent disclosure and inadequate safeguards will chill donors; confidentiality concerns justify injunction | Disclosure to AG is nonpublic and speculative fears of leaks are insufficient without evidence of harm | Rejected: speculative confidentiality concerns do not establish likely chilled association or irreparable harm |
| Whether federal tax statutes (§6104) preempt state AG's requirement | §6104 manifests congressional intent to protect donor names and thus preempts state demands for Schedule B | §6104 regulates IRS disclosures; it does not clearly and manifestly preempt state enforcement powers or bar states from obtaining information directly from nonprofits | Rejected: strong presumption against preemption; §6104 does not clearly manifest intent to preempt state authority |
Key Cases Cited
- NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) (compelled disclosure of membership lists can violate freedom of association where disclosure would produce threats or harassment)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (exacting scrutiny for disclosure rules; facial challenges require factual showing of danger to associational freedoms)
- John Doe No. 1 v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186 (2010) (distinguishes facial vs. as‑applied First Amendment challenges to disclosure of petition signatures)
- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (disclaimer and disclosure requirements subject to exacting scrutiny)
- Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunctions: likelihood of success and irreparable harm required)
- Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960) (protections for anonymous pamphleteering recognized as First Amendment interest)
- McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003) (leaves open possibility of successful as‑applied challenges to disclosure rules)
- Acorn Invs., Inc. v. City of Seattle, 887 F.2d 219 (9th Cir. 1989) (invalidated disclosure where sole purpose was harassment; distinguishes here due to legitimate state purpose)
- Stokwitz v. United States, 831 F.2d 893 (9th Cir. 1987) (statutory protections governing IRS disclosures do not necessarily preempt other government entities’ access)