Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta

Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 26, 2021 Decided July 1, 2021
Full case name	Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California; Thomas More Law Center v. Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California
Docket nos.	19-251 19-255
Citations	594 U.S. ___ (more)
Argument	Oral argument
Holding
The requirement for non-profit organizations to disclose their donors under California law is facially invalid because it burdens the First Amendment rights of the donors and it is not also narrowly tailored to an important interest of government.
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Clarence Thomas · Stephen Breyer Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor Elena Kagan · Neil Gorsuch Brett Kavanaugh · Amy Coney Barrett
Case opinions
Majority	Roberts, joined by Kavanaugh, Barrett; Alito, Gorsuch (except Part II–B–1); Thomas (except Parts II–B–1 and III–B)
Concurrence	Thomas (in part)
Concurrence	Alito (in part), joined by Gorsuch
Dissent	Sotomayor, joined by Breyer, Kagan
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the disclosure of donors to non-profit organizations. The case challenged California's requirement that requires non-profit organizations to disclose the identity of their donors in the state tax returns. The case was consolidated with Thomas More Law Center v. Bonta. In July 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that California's requirement burdened the donors' First Amendment rights and was not narrowly tailored, and thus invalid.

Background[]

Under federal law, non-profit organizations are required to provide the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) with a list of major donors (those that donate more than $5,000 or 2% of the total donations to the non-profit in a year) with their annual tax forms, Form 990. This information, held on Schedule B "Schedule of Contributors" of Form 990, is treated as sensitive within the IRS and not shared with states unless there is a pressing need. While non-profits subsequently are required to publicly report most of their tax return, they are not required to include the Schedule B donor information in this. This was established by Congress to protect the privacy of donors to non-profits.

Within California, non-profits must also renew their registration with the state annually via the state's attorney general's office. Though no state law required them to do so, in 2010 the state began requiring non-profits to include the Form 990 Schedule B with their registration, or be decertified in the state. While many non-profits complied, others argued that this was unconstitutional. While the state assured that these forms would be held in confidence, during litigation, several instances were found where over 1,800 forms were posted online for public access while others were included in material that was taken during a computer hack.^[1]

Lower courts[]

Two of the non-profits affected, Americans for Prosperity and the Thomas More Law Center, filed suit against attorney general Kamala Harris in 2014 in the Central District of California. The two non-profits argued that the California regulation on disclosure violated their freedom of association under the First Amendment and would scare away donors who otherwise wished to remain anonymous. The District Court granted a permanent injunction to prevent the state from collecting Schedule B from non-profits in a ruling in April 2016.^[1] Since the case was filed, the defendant shifted from Harris to Xavier Becerra (AG from 2017 to 2021), to Matthew Rodriquez (acting AG in 2021), to Rob Bonta.

The state appealed the injunction to the Ninth Circuit. There, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court ruling and lifted the injunction. The three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that there was a compelling state interest to have the donor lists from the Schedule B form to police charitable fraud. The Ninth Circuit rejected a motion to hear the case en banc.^[1]

Supreme Court[]

Both Americans for Prosperity and the Thomas More Law Center separately petitioned to the Supreme Court to challenge the Ninth Circuit's decision. Both petitions raised the question of strict scrutiny in evaluating whether their freedom of speech and association rights could be infringed by the needs of the state. The petitioners referenced the Court's decisions in NAACP v. Alabama (1958) and Bates v. City of Little Rock (1960), which found that states could not demand donor lists or other private information from non-profits to make determinations about the nature of their business if there were other non-intrusive methods available to the state. The petitions further raised the issue that California's request for Schedule B was far broader than necessary for its purported need to fight fraud, which also fails the strict scrutiny test. Even under the less-intense exacting scrutiny test, the California requirement was considered overly broad by the petitioners.^[1]

In response, California urged the Court to review the case under the lower standard of exacting scrutiny. Under the state's argument, the request for all Schedule B's is necessarily broad so that they may review records when complaints are filed against charities among other work, beyond just policing fraud. The state also asserted that there was no evidence from the petitioners that showed that this disclosure of the donors lists had slowed down or scared off potential donors to non-profits. The state claimed the public disclosure of the Schedule B forms were shortcomings but otherwise did not affect their policy.^[1]

In amicus briefs prior to the Court's certification, several other non-profits wrote to support the petitioners' case, concerned that upholding the Ninth Circuit's decision would endanger disclosure of classified information such as the Terrorist Screening Database and would hamper law enforcement. Those in support of California, including Democratic Senators, saw that upholding the Ninth Circuit decision was necessary as to undo the increased use of political "dark money" donated through non-profits that had been made legal through the Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC in 2010.^[1]

The Court certified both cases in January 2021, consolidating them under Americans for Prosperity's petition. Prior to oral arguments, several groups petitioned for Justice Amy Coney Barrett to recuse herself from the case, as Americans for Prosperity had spent significant funds for a ad campaign to promote her as the replacement justice for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Barrett refused to recuse herself without comment.^[2]

Oral arguments were heard on April 26, 2021. Observers to the Court believed that the Court sided with the non-profits and will likely strike down the California requirement based on the oral arguments. Conservative members of the court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito sided with the non-profits arguments that their freedom of association was likely violated by the Schedule B requirement.^[3]

The Court issued its decision on July 1, 2021. The 6–3 decision reversed the Ninth Circuit's ruling and remanded the case to enter judgment in accordance with the Supreme Court's opinion. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, ruled that California's regulation placed too much burden on donors, violating their First Amendment rights, and did not serve a narrowly-tailored government interest, and thus was invalid. Roberts wrote "The upshot is that California casts a dragnet for sensitive donor information from tens of thousands of charities each year, even though that information will become relevant in only a small number of cases involving filed complaints."^[4]

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissent which was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan. Sotomayor wrote the majority decision would open up more anonymous money into political donations, and that their evaluation of California's regulation "trades precision for blunt force" and creates a "significant risk that it will topple disclosure regimes that should be constitutional."^[4]

Although the case was widely cited in the media as a conservative victory, the American Civil Liberties Union, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the Human Rights Campaign filed briefs on behalf of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation.^[5]

References[]

External links[]

• Slip opinion