Rio Grande Foundation v. Toulouse Oliver, 57 F.4th 1147

New Mexico’s 2019 SB3 amended the Campaign Reporting Act to require (1) disclaimers on electioneering ads over $1,000 and (2) donor-identification disclosures to the Secretary when independent expenditures exceed $3,000 (nonstatewide) or $9,000 (statewide); violations carry misdemeanor penalties.
Plaintiffs: Rio Grande Foundation (RGF), a New Mexico advocacy group with a history of issue advocacy and plans to spend over $3,000 on district mailers in 2020, and Illinois Opportunity Project (IOP), an Illinois social-welfare group that planned (but did not send) >$9,000 mailings in NM in 2020 and has no prior NM advertising history.
Both organizations alleged SB3 chills their First Amendment speech/association because donor disclosure would deter contributors and harm advocacy; they sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
The district court granted summary judgment to the Secretary for lack of Article III standing, applying the Walker chilled-speech framework.
The Tenth Circuit reversed as to RGF’s challenge to the donor-disclosure requirement (holding RGF had standing and the claim was not moot), affirmed dismissal of the disclaimer claim for lack of standing, and held IOP’s disclosure claim moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to challenge disclaimer requirement (identify sponsor on ads)	Requirement infringes anonymity/choice and chills speech	Plaintiffs have voluntarily and historically identified themselves; no injury-in-fact	Dismissal affirmed — plaintiffs lack standing to challenge disclaimer requirement
Standing to challenge donor-disclosure requirement (reports to Secretary) — RGF	RGF has past NM advocacy, intended >$3,000 mailers, subjective chill, and would refrain from large expenditures absent relief	Secretary: RGF lacks past/precise expenditures triggering SB3 and cannot show plausible chill	Reversed — RGF has standing under Walker: past relevant speech, present desire to speak, and plausible objective chill; claim not moot
Standing/mootness for IOP's disclosure claim	IOP intended future materially similar speech and is chilled	Secretary: IOP lacks NM history and any reasonable probability of future NM advocacy; claim moot	Affirmed — IOP's claim is moot (no reasonable expectation of recurrence)
Application of Walker chilled-speech framework	Walker provides a low bar for First Amendment pre-enforcement standing; past speech not strictly required	Secretary urged stricter application and factual demands	Court clarifies Walker is permissive: consider past speech, desire to speak, and plausible objective chill; evaluate standing as of filing but reassess with later evidence

Initiative & Referendum Inst. v. Walker, 450 F.3d 1082 (10th Cir. 2006) (articulates three-part Walker test for chilled-speech standing)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing elements and summary-judgment proof requirements)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (standing must exist at filing and be maintained; personal stake throughout litigation)
D.L.S. v. Utah, 374 F.3d 971 (10th Cir. 2004) (chill must arise from an objectively justified fear; credible threat standard)
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (2014) (pre-enforcement First Amendment challenges and standing principles)
Americans for Prosperity Found. v. Bonta, 141 S. Ct. 2373 (2021) (donor-disclosure requirements and First Amendment analysis)
Rio Grande Found. v. City of Santa Fe, 7 F.4th 956 (10th Cir. 2021) (illustrative standing application in municipal speech context)