The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to rule on a case involving questions of privacy and anonymity stemming from a lawsuit filed against the California Attorney General for requiring non-profit organizations to disclose donor lists.
The factual implications of the case, Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, are whether states should have the ability to demand the identities of nonprofit donors, and on a broader level involve whether there is an inherent or constitutional right to privacy and to anonymity in people’s speech and associations, Jeremy Talcott, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), told the Northern California Record.
“I personally think it's perhaps even likely that the Supreme Court will reaffirm the earlier principles of cases like NAACP against Alabama and hold that there remains both the compelling interest requirement and the narrow tailoring requirement for these types of disclosure laws,” Talcott said.
California is one of a handful of states that have sought names of donors giving more than $5,000 on forms filed with the state.
“There was never a legislative mandate, it was the AG wanting it in case of fraud, but it raises inherent First Amendment questions,” Talcott said.
Several charitable organizations filed suit in 2014, arguing such disclosure could subject donors to harassment and violate their privacy rights.
“There are laws prohibiting certain behavior and the state has plenty of mechanisms to investigate that behavior,” Talcott said. “But it's far different to simply demand all information from otherwise law-abiding donors and nonprofits because there might be some potential bad actor out there.”
The PLF also submitted an amicus brief in the case.
“We focused quite a bit on the fact that anonymous speech and association was widespread at the time of the [country’s] founding and at the time that the First Amendment was adopted,” Talcott said. “And so that’s a very good argument that those rights would have been understood to be included within the framework of the First Amendment.”
The high court, which heard oral arguments in the case late last month, is expected to issue its decision early this summer.
“The key takeaway that we've always tried to highlight is that it's reasonable for people to desire anonymity, for a large variety of reasons,” Talcott said. “Even as to various government agencies, it's reasonable and it's right for people to expect or desire anonymity and privacy, and government should have a pretty good reason when it seeks to strip that away.”