Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta

Background

Two tax-exempt charities that raise money in California challenged a state rule requiring charities to file copies of their IRS Form 990, including Schedule B, with the California Attorney General. Schedule B lists the names, addresses, and contribution amounts of major donors. The charities said they had long filed redacted versions to protect donor anonymity, but after California stepped up enforcement in 2010 the Attorney General threatened fines and suspension for noncompliance, prompting lawsuits and preliminary injunctions in federal court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court reviewed whether the requirement violates donors’ First Amendment right to associate privately. The Court applied “exacting scrutiny,” and said that test requires disclosure rules to be narrowly tailored to an important government interest. The Court found California’s blanket collection of Schedule Bs was a poor fit: the record showed Schedule Bs are rarely used to begin investigations, alternatives like subpoenas or audit letters exist, and the state’s primary justification appeared to be administrative convenience rather than essential fraud detection. The Court also noted past confidentiality breaches and concluded the rule imposes a widespread risk of chilling donations.

Real world impact

The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, held the requirement facially unconstitutional, and remanded the cases. That outcome prevents California from routinely collecting unredacted major-donor lists from charities and preserves greater anonymity for donors. The decision limits how states may gather sensitive donor information and signals that routine, up-front collection must be justified by a strong, narrowly tailored need.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices agreed the outcome but differed on doctrine: some urged a stricter scrutiny standard, and the dissent argued the Court should have left the rule in place or granted narrower, as-applied relief based on the record.