Citizens United v. Schneiderman
882 F.3d 374
2d Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiffs Citizens United (a 501(c)(4)) and Citizens United Foundation (a 501(c)(3)) solicit donations nationwide and file annual IRS Form 990s, which include Schedule B donor lists kept confidential by the IRS.
- New York requires any out-of-state organization soliciting in New York to register and file annual disclosures with the NY Attorney General, and NY regulations have required submission of Form 990 and all schedules (including Schedule B) for years.
- Plaintiffs historically submitted Form 990 but omitted donor-identifying portions of Schedule B; beginning in 2013 the NY Attorney General served repeated deficiency notices demanding full Schedule B disclosure and warned of penalties for noncompliance.
- Plaintiffs sued, alleging: First Amendment violations (chill to donors and prior restraint), federal preemption by the Internal Revenue Code, that inclusion of 501(c)(4)s exceeded NY Attorney General authority under state law, and a due process claim based on stepped-up enforcement without notice.
- The district court dismissed all claims for failure to state a claim and dismissed the due process claim as unripe; the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of the substantive claims, held the due process claim ripe but dismissed it on the merits, and remanded for entry of a revised judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NY's donor-disclosure requirement unconstitutionally chills donors/associations | Disclosure will chill donors given plaintiffs' notoriety; strict scrutiny required under NAACP v. Alabama | Disclosure is content-neutral, furthers important anti-fraud interests; exacting scrutiny applies and the burden is not substantial | Court applied exacting scrutiny and held plaintiffs failed to plausibly show a substantial chill; claim dismissed |
| Whether the annual registration/disclosure regime is a prior restraint on solicitation | Requiring registration and yearly disclosure before soliciting functions as a prior restraint that should be presumptively invalid | Requirement is neutral, objective, remedial; withholding solicitation follows noncompliance after notice/opportunity to cure, not an in‑advance censorship regime | Not a prior restraint; plaintiffs' prior-restraint challenge fails |
| Whether NY's regulation is preempted by the Internal Revenue Code's confidentiality rules | IRC's confidentiality scheme prevents NY from demanding Schedule B information or otherwise conflicts with federal law | IRC does not preclude states from seeking donor info directly from organizations; no pervasive federal scheme preempting states | No preemption; claim fails |
| Whether stepped-up enforcement without prior notice violated due process | Attorney General changed enforcement practice without adequate notice, so regulated entities lacked fair notice | Enforcement intensified but statutory duties remained unchanged; no notice requirement for change in enforcement priorities | Claim ripe but fails on the merits; stepping up enforcement without changing legal standards does not violate due process |
Key Cases Cited
- National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) (disclosure of membership lists may be barred where disclosure is likely to lead to threats and retaliation)
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (discussing standards for disclosure requirements and speaker-based restrictions)
- Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015) (distinguishing content-based from content-neutral laws and the applicable scrutiny)
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (framework for disclosure rules in the First Amendment context)
- Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992) (standards for licensing regimes and prior restraint concerns)