(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY FOUNDATION v. BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 19–251. Argued April 26, 2021—Decided July 1, 2021* Charitable organizations soliciting funds in California must disclose the identities of their major donors to the state Attorney General’s Office. Charities generally must register with the Attorney General and re- new their registrations annually. The Attorney General requires char- ities renewing their registrations to file copies of their Internal Reve- nue Service Form 990, a form on which tax-exempt organizations provide information about their mission, leadership, and finances. Schedule B to Form 990—the document that gives rise to the present dispute—requires organizations to disclose the names and addresses of their major donors. The State contends that having this information readily available furthers its interest in policing misconduct by chari- ties. The petitioners are two tax-exempt charities that solicit contribu- tions in California. Since 2001, each petitioner has renewed its regis- tration and has filed a copy of its Form 990 with the Attorney General, as required by Cal. Code Regs., tit. 11, §301. To preserve their donors’ anonymity, however, the petitioners have declined to file unredacted Schedule Bs, and they had until recently faced no consequences for noncompliance. In 2010, the State increased its enforcement of chari- ties’ Schedule B disclosure obligations, and the Attorney General ulti- mately threatened the petitioners with suspension of their registra- tions and fines for noncompliance. The petitioners each responded by —————— * Together with No. 19–255, Thomas More Law Center v. Bonta, also on certiorari to the same court. 2 AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY FOUNDATION v. BONTA Syllabus filing suit in District Court, alleging that the compelled disclosure re- quirement violated their First Amendment rights and the rights of their donors. Disclosure of their Schedule Bs, the petitioners alleged, would make their donors less likely to contribute and would subject them to the risk of reprisals. Both organizations challenged the con- stitutionality of the disclosure requirement on its face and as applied to them. In each case, the District Court granted preliminary injunc- tive relief prohibiting the Attorney General from collecting the peti- tioners’ Schedule B information. The Ninth Circuit vacated and re- manded, reasoning that Circuit precedent required rejection of the petitioners’ facial challenge. Reviewing the petitioners’ as-applied claims under an “exacting scrutiny” standard, the panel narrowed the District Court’s injunction, and it allowed the Attorney General to col- lect the petitioners’ Schedule Bs so long as they were not publicly dis- …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals