Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta
Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta | |
---|---|
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) 141 S.Ct. 2373 |
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 | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Roberts (except as to Part II–B–1), joined by Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett; Thomas (except Parts II–B–1 and III–B) |
Plurality | Roberts (Part II–B–1), joined by Kavanaugh, Barrett |
Concurrence | Thomas (in part and in the judgment) |
Concurrence | Alito (in part and in the judgment), joined by Gorsuch |
Dissent | Sotomayor, joined by Breyer, Kagan |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. I |
Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, 141 S.Ct. 2373 (2021), is a
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 are required to make Form 990 publicly available, they are not required to include the Schedule B donor information. This was established by Congress to protect the privacy of donors to non-profits.
Within California, non-profits must renew their registration with the state annually via the state's attorney general's office. Though no state statute required it, 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. Unlike the federal filings, the California filings served no tax purpose. Further, California lacked the protections against accidental disclosure—including penalties for publicly disclosing the information—that applied to the IRS. While the state gave assurances that these forms would be held in confidence, during litigation it was 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. (Over the course of the litigation, the defendant shifted as the state Attorney General's office changed hands, from Harris to Xavier Becerra (AG from 2017 to 2021), to Matthew Rodriquez (acting AG in 2021), to Rob Bonta). 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]
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 petitioners argued that
In response, California urged the Court to review the case under the lower standard of
In
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 an 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, and 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 violated the First Amendment rights of donors and non-profits, 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."[3]
Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a 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."[3]
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 were among the non-profits filing or signing on to amicus briefs in support of Americans for Prosperity Foundation.[4]
References
- ^ a b c d e Howe, Amy (April 25, 2021). "Justices to consider constitutionality of donor disclosure rule". SCOTUSblog. Archived from the original on April 28, 2021. Retrieved April 28, 2021.
- Forbes. Archivedfrom the original on April 27, 2021. Retrieved April 28, 2021.
- ^ a b de Vogue, Ariane; Stracqualursi, Veronica; Schouten, Fredreka (July 1, 2021). "Supreme Court invalidates California's donor disclosure requirement". CNN. Archived from the original on July 1, 2021. Retrieved July 1, 2021.
- ^ "Americans for Prosperity Foundation V. Xavier Beccera, Attorney General of California". ACLU.
External links
- Text of Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, No. 19-251, 594 U.S. ___ (2021) is available from: Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion)