## Facts

- D.E.L.T.A. Rescue (DELTA) is a California nonprofit operating an animal shelter and fundraising through direct-mail solicitations.
- DELTA solicited contributions from Pennsylvania residents without registering under Pennsylvania’s Solicitation of Funds for Charitable Purposes Act.
- In 2000, DELTA entered a consent agreement admitting prior unregistered solicitation, agreeing to register, to stop soliciting until registered, and to pay a $5,000 administrative fine.
- DELTA registered, but its registration lapsed after approximately one year; it did not reapply.
- DELTA continued mailing solicitations into Pennsylvania after the lapse.
- A solicitation letter used a California post office box and omitted the Act’s required disclosure stating how to obtain official registration/financial information and that registration does not imply state endorsement.
- The Secretary issued a final order imposing a $3,000 administrative fine and directing DELTA to cease solicitation in Pennsylvania until it paid the fine and complied with registration, notification, and disclosure obligations.

## Issues

1. Whether the Act’s registration, notification, and disclosure requirements, as applied to DELTA’s mail solicitations, violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
2. Whether the Act’s solicitation disclosure requirement was unconstitutionally vague.
3. Whether the administrative enforcement process denied DELTA procedural due process.
4. Whether the agency’s findings were supported by substantial evidence.
5. Whether equitable estoppel barred the Bureau from enforcing the Act based on the parties’ prior dealings, including the 2000 consent agreement.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the final adjudication and order.
- The Act’s registration and disclosure requirements were constitutional as applied to DELTA’s charitable solicitations.
- The disclosure provision was not unconstitutionally vague.
- DELTA received adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard; no due process violation occurred.
- Substantial evidence supported findings that DELTA solicited while unregistered and failed to include the required disclosure.
- The Bureau was not equitably estopped from enforcing the Act.
- The $3,000 fine and cease-solicitation directive remained in effect until DELTA complied with the Act.

## Legal Principles

- Charitable solicitation is protected speech, but a state may impose content-neutral, manner-based regulations to prevent fraud and protect the public.
- A mandated solicitation disclosure that is short, factual, and uniformly required may be sustained as narrowly tailored to substantial governmental interests and may constitute a minimal burden on speech.
- A statute is not void for vagueness where it provides clear standards of conduct, including specifying exact disclosure language and when it must be used.
- Procedural due process in administrative enforcement generally requires notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
- Agency adjudicatory findings will be upheld when supported by substantial evidence in the record.
- Equitable estoppel rarely applies against the government when it would impair enforcement of public-protection laws; prior settlements do not create ongoing permission to violate statutory requirements.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Pennsylvania’s enforcement of its charitable-solicitation statute against an out-of-state charity, concluding that registration and specified written-disclosure requirements validly protect the public and that the fine and cease-solicitation order were supported by evidence and consistent with due process.


D.E.L.T.A. Rescue v. Bureau of Charitable Orgs., 979 A.2d 415 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009)