In Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of non-profit organizations seeking to preclude the California Attorney General from disclosing donor names.
States can no longer demand donor lists without showing the information is needed for law enforcement or some other similarly significant government purpose, Jim Manley, a Pacific Legal Foundation attorney who leads its free speech practice group, told the Northern California Record by email.
“Nonprofits accomplish tremendous good across the country because of their ability to obtain donations from individuals who believe in their cause — even where any one individual might be too afraid to support a particular position,” Manley said. “California’s attack on donor privacy had the potential to chill charitable work nationwide. The Court’s decision recognizes that anonymous speech is the bedrock of our Constitution.”
Manley noted the NAACP had already taken this fight to Supreme Court 63 years ago and won.
“In NAACP v. Alabama, the Court recognized the obvious problem with Alabama officials demanding to inspect NAACP membership lists,” Manley said. “But fast forward to 2020 and the Ninth Circuit had no qualms about crediting California’s purported interest in ‘investigat[ing] charitable fraud.’ The Court’s decision corrects the Ninth Circuit’s error and reinvigorates the protections guaranteed by NAACP v. Alabama."
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision was handed down July 1.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the high court’s ruling, “We are left to conclude that the Attorney General’s disclosure requirement imposes a widespread burden on donors’ associational rights. And this burden cannot be justified on the ground that the regime is narrowly tailored to investigating charitable wrongdoing, or that the State’s interest in administrative convenience is sufficiently important.”
The court also noted that the range and number of organizations submitting amicus briefs underscored the “gravity of the privacy concerns.”
The PLF also had submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the nonprofits.
“When advocates for our national charter defended the new Constitution, they wrote anonymously,” Manley said. “Critics of the Constitution demanded a Bill of Rights be added — and they too made their arguments anonymously. [This] decision recognizes that the First Amendment those anonymous patriots enacted still protects the right to speak—without sacrificing the right to privacy.”