## Facts

- California required charities soliciting funds in the state to register and renew annually with the Attorney General, including filing IRS Form 990 and an unredacted Schedule B listing major donors’ names and addresses.
- Beginning around 2010, California increased enforcement of the Schedule B requirement and threatened penalties (including suspension and fines) for noncompliance.
- Americans for Prosperity Foundation and Thomas More Law Center solicited donations in California and challenged the compelled disclosure requirement under the First Amendment, alleging it would deter donations and expose donors to harassment and reprisals.
- The district courts credited evidence that donors valued confidentiality, that disclosure risked chilling association, and that the Attorney General’s office had failed to keep Schedule B information confidential through public posting and data-security weaknesses.
- After trials, each district court permanently enjoined enforcement, finding the disclosure regime unconstitutional as applied under exacting scrutiny.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding the requirement facially valid under exacting scrutiny and concluding the plaintiffs had not shown a sufficient burden on associational rights.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari and consolidated the cases.

## Issues

1. Whether California’s blanket requirement that charities submit major-donor information to the Attorney General burdens First Amendment associational rights, even when the information is intended to remain nonpublic.
2. Whether the requirement survives exacting scrutiny, including whether it is narrowly tailored to an important governmental interest.
3. Whether the compelled disclosure regime is facially unconstitutional under First Amendment overbreadth principles.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and held California’s Schedule B disclosure requirement facially invalid under the First Amendment.
- The Court applied exacting scrutiny and assumed California had an important interest in preventing charitable fraud and self-dealing.
- The Court found the disclosure rule imposed a broad burden on associational rights, supported by record evidence of deterrence and the State’s repeated confidentiality failures.
- The Court held the regime was not narrowly tailored because California collected donor information indiscriminately and did not meaningfully use it for routine screening or to initiate investigations; it generally sought the information only after identifying issues through other sources.
- The Court rejected the view that a facial challenge required showing invalidity in all applications, concluding the law’s sweep was overbroad relative to its legitimate reach.

## Legal Principles

- Compelled disclosure of associational information can violate the First Amendment even when the information is kept in government files rather than publicly released.
- Under exacting scrutiny, compelled disclosure must be narrowly tailored to an important governmental interest; administrative convenience cannot justify significant burdens on associational rights.
- In First Amendment facial challenges, a plaintiff need not prove a law is unconstitutional in every application; substantial overbreadth in relation to legitimate applications can warrant facial relief.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated California’s across-the-board donor-disclosure mandate for charities because its indiscriminate collection of sensitive donor identities burdened associational rights and lacked the required narrow tailoring to the State’s asserted law-enforcement interests.


Ams. for Prosperity Found. v. Bonta, 594 U.S. 595 (2021)