California sought to force charities and nonprofits to provide their largest donor list to the state, but the Supreme Court said that violated their First Amendment rights and struck down the policy:
In its second ruling of the day (and final opinion of the term), SCOTUS rules in favor of two groups that brought a First Amendment challenge to a California policy requiring nonprofits and charities operating in the state to provide the state with a list of their largest donors.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) July 1, 2021
It is 6-3. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the court joined by his fellow conservative justices. Justice Sotomayor dissented join by Breyer and Kagan.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) July 1, 2021
Here’s more from DC Examiner:
The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a California donor disclosure requirement that a series of conservative groups said targeted them.
In a 6-3 decision, the court found that the requirement is invalid because it burdens donors’ First Amendment rights and is not narrowly tailored to advance important government interests. The decision is a win for nonprofit organizations that argued that the rule was intimidating donors who might otherwise support controversial anonymous causes.
The rule, which the challengers argued targeted conservatives, has been the subject of heated debate for nearly a decade. It was originally imposed by the California attorney general’s office and required all nonprofit groups seeking to raise money in the state to report the names and addresses of their major donors nationwide.
The state claimed that donor information would be kept private and only viewed by authorized officials. The reason for the rule, it said, was to prevent fraud. But given California’s poor record of confidentiality in other matters, a number of charities worried that private donor information would inevitably leak to the public.
In 2014, the libertarian Americans for Prosperity Foundation and the Thomas More Law Center, a Catholic legal group, sued the state, arguing that the rule violates their First Amendment right to free association by discouraging donors from giving to them.
A federal district court ruled in their favor. But the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed that decision. In April, many of the Supreme Court’s justices appeared sympathetic to the nonprofit groups’ cause, with several making a case for donor privacy, especially if a charity supports controversial causes.
The case attracted attention for its role in deciding the future of “dark money.” Prior to arguments, Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse sent Justice Amy Coney Barrett a letter asking that she recuse herself from the case. Whitehouse was joined by Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal and Georgia Rep. Hank Johnson, both of whom have been vocal critics of former President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court appointments.
The three argued that because an arm of Americans for Prosperity campaigned for Barrett’s confirmation, she had a conflict of interest in the case. Barrett did not recuse herself from arguments.
In other words, California wanted to bully these large donors into not supporting conservative causes, which is why they forced all groups to make these disclosures so they could target the conservative groups. Thank goodness the Supreme Court got this one right, because the way someone spends their money is their First Amendment right and it should not be infringed by leftists running one of the most liberal states in the nation.
