Americans For Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta

141 S. Ct. 2373 (2021)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Under California state law, D is authorized to “establish and maintain a register” of charitable organizations and to obtain “whatever information, copies of instruments, reports, and records are needed for the establishment and maintenance of the register.” In California, charities generally must register with D and renew their registrations annually. §§12585(a), 12586(a). Over 100,000 charities are currently registered in the State, and roughly 60,000 renew their registrations each year. California law allows D to make rules and regulations regarding the registration and renewal process. D requires charities renewing their registrations to file copies of their Internal Revenue Service Form 990, along with any attachments and schedules. Form 990 contains information regarding tax-exempt organizations’ mission, leadership, and finances. Schedule B to Form 990 requires organizations to disclose the names and addresses of donors who have contributed more than $5,000 in a particular tax year (or, in some cases, who have given more than 2 percent of an organization’s total contributions). Ps are tax-exempt charities that are subject to D’s registration and renewal requirements. Each P has renewed its registration with California and has filed a copy of its Form 990 but not the Schedule Bs. D began to enforce the filing of the Schedule Bs. D got desperate and threatened Ps for noncompliance. Ps sued D for violation of their First Amendment rights and the rights of their donors. Ps challenged the disclosure requirement on its face and as applied to them. The District Court granted preliminary injunctive relief prohibiting D from collecting their Schedule B information. The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded. holding that it was bound by Circuit precedent to reject Ps’ facial challenge. The court allowed D to collect the Schedule Bs so long as he did not publicly disclose them. Ps challenged the disclosure requirement on its face and as applied to them. The District Court held bench trials in both cases, after which it entered judgment for the P and permanently enjoined D from collecting their Schedule Bs. Applying exacting scrutiny, the Schedule Bs were not narrowly tailored to D’s interest in investigating charitable misconduct. It determined that the disclosure regime burdened the associational rights of donors. The court found that D was unable to ensure the confidentiality of donors’ information. The Ninth Circuit again vacated the District Court’s injunctions, and this time reversed the judgments and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of D. It held that the disclosure regime satisfied exacting scrutiny because the up-front collection of charities’ Schedule Bs promoted investigative efficiency and effectiveness. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.