Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta

• Justices
  • 
    CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS
  • ASSOCIATE JUSTICES
    • SAMUEL ALITO
    • AMY CONEY BARRETT
    • NEIL GORSUCH
    • KETANJI BROWN JACKSON
    • ELENA KAGAN
    • BRETT KAVANAUGH
    • SONIA SOTOMAYOR
    • CLARENCE THOMAS
• CASES BY TERM
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2025-2026
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2024-2025
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2023-2024
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2022-2023
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2021-2022
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2019-2020
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2018-2019
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2017-2018
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2016-2017
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2015-2016
  • All earlier cases
• HISTORY OF THE COURT
  • Cases by chief justice
  • Cases by decade
• Recent vacancies
  • 2022 VACANCY AND JACKSON CONFIRMATION
  • 2020 VACANCY AND BARRETT CONFIRMATION
  • 2018 VACANCY AND KAVANAUGH CONFIRMATION
  • 2017 VACANCY AND GORSUCH CONFIRMATION

Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta
Term: 2020
Important Dates
Argued: April 26, 2021 Decided: July 1, 2021
Outcome
Reversed and remanded
Vote
6-3
Majority
Chief Justice John Roberts • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett
Concurring
Clarence Thomas; Samuel Alito • Neil Gorsuch
Dissenting
Sonia Sotomayor • Stephen Breyer • Elena Kagan

This article is about the court case previously known as Americans for Prosperity v. Becerra; it became Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta when Rob Bonta became the California attorney general.

Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta is a case that was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on April 26, 2021, during the court's October 2020-2021 term. It was consolidated with Thomas More Law Center v. Bonta (formerly Thomas More Law Center v. Becerra).

In a 6-3 opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the district court was correct in entering judgment in favor of the petitioners and permanently enjoining the California Attorney General from collecting their Schedule B forms, and that the Ninth Circuit erred when it vacated those injunctions and directed the entry of judgment for the attorney general. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion of the court. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Samuel Alito filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan. Click here for more information about the ruling.

HIGHLIGHTS

The case: Two conservative advocacy groups, the Thomas More Law Center and Americans for Prosperity, challenged a California policy requirement that tax-exempt §501(c)(3) charitable organizations must disclose the names and addresses of major donors. The groups argued that the policy violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled in favor of the state. Click here to learn more about the cases' background.

The issues: The cases concerned governmental disclosure requirements for charitable organizations' donor lists and the Supreme Court's decision in NAACP v. Alabama.

The questions presented: "Whether the exacting scrutiny this Court has long required of laws that abridge the freedoms of speech and association outside the election context—as called for by NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), and its progeny—can be satisfied absent any showing that a blanket governmental demand for the individual identities and addresses of major donors to private nonprofit organizations is narrowly tailored to an asserted law-enforcement interest."

The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion in the consolidated cases, click here.

Timeline

The following timeline details key events in Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta and Thomas More Law Center v. Bonta:

• July 1, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.
• April 26, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
• January 8, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the consolidated cases.
• August 26, 2019: The Americans for Prosperity Foundation and the Thomas More Law Center appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
• March 29, 2019: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit denied the petitions for rehearing 'en banc'.

Background

Americans for Prosperity, a conservative advocacy group and 501(c)(3) charitable organization, filed a motion for permanent injunction against the State of California in district court, regarding the state's policy that such charitable organizations must disclose the names and addresses of their major donors. California state law requires that charitable organizations such as Americans for Prosperity must file a copy of its IRS Form 990, including its Schedule B form, with the state registry, as a protective measure to prevent charitable fraud. Schedule B forms include all names and addresses of all individuals who donated more than $5,000 to the charity during a given tax year. While the federal tax return must be made available to the public, the Schedule B is privately stored. Americans for Prosperity argued that the policy violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution's freedom of association clause, citing potential harm to donors if their membership was disclosed.

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued a permanent injunction on the State of California from requiring Americans for Prosperity to file its donor information with the state, holding that the state didn't need the donor list in order to accomplish its goal of preventing charitable fraud. The court also found that California's cybersecurity infrastructure was not sufficient enough to keep the disclosed information protected, which effectively amounted to the publication of the donor lists.

In a panel review of the district court's decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit vacated the injunctions, reversed the Central District of California's rulings, and judged in favor of the state, holding that the state's requirement obligating charitable organizations to submit their donor lists survived "exacting scrutiny", meaning that the state's policy was substantially related to a sufficiently important governmental interest, and said that the organizations already file the same information with the state each year as part of its federal tax filing.

Americans for Prosperity appealed to the 9th Circuit, requesting a rehearing 'en banc'. The 9th Circuit panel denied the groups' petitions for rehearing.

NAACP v. Alabama

The following is a quote relating to membership disclosure requirements for charity groups and to freedom of association from the Supreme Court's opinion in the case NAACP v. Alabama, decided June 30, 1958:

“	It is hardly a novel perception that compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may constitute as effective a restraint on freedom of association as the forms of governmental action in the cases above were thought likely to produce upon the particular constitutional rights there involved. This Court has recognized the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one's associations. When referring to the varied forms of governmental action which might interfere with freedom of assembly, it said in American Communications Assn. v. Douds, supra, at 402: "A requirement that adherents of particular religious faiths or political parties wear identifying arm-bands, for example, is obviously of this nature." Compelled disclosure of membership in an organization engaged in advocacy of particular beliefs is of the same order. Inviolability of privacy in group association may in many circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of association, particularly where a group espouses dissident beliefs. Cf. United States v. Rumely, supra, at 56-58 (concurring opinion). We think that the production order, in the respects here drawn in question, must be regarded as entailing the likelihood of a substantial restraint upon the exercise by petitioner's members of their right to freedom of association. Petitioner has made an uncontroverted showing that on past occasions revelation of the identity of its rank-and-file members has exposed these members to economic reprisal, loss of employment, threat of physical coercion, and other manifestations of public hostility. Under these circumstances, we think it apparent that compelled disclosure of petitioner's Alabama membership is likely to affect adversely the ability of petitioner and its members to pursue their collective effort to foster beliefs which they admittedly have the right to advocate, in that it may induce members to withdraw from the Association and dissuade others from joining it because of fear of exposure of their beliefs shown through their associations and of the consequences of this exposure.	”
—Supreme Court of the United States

Questions presented

The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:

Questions presented: Whether the exacting scrutiny this Court has long required of laws that abridge the freedoms of speech and association outside the election context—as called for by NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), and its progeny—can be satisfied absent any showing that a blanket governmental demand for the individual identities and addresses of major donors to private nonprofit organizations is narrowly tailored to an asserted law-enforcement interest.

Oral argument

Audio

Audio of oral argument:

Transcript

Transcript of oral argument:

Outcome

In a 6-3 opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the district court was correct in entering judgment in favor of the petitioners and permanently enjoining the California Attorney General from collecting their Schedule B forms, and that the Ninth Circuit erred when it vacated those injunctions and directed the entry of judgment for the attorney general.

Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion of the court. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joined the court's opinion in full. Justice Clarence Thomas joined except as to Parts II–B–1 and III–B and filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch joined except as to Part II–B–1. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Gorsuch joined. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.

Opinion

In the court's majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote:

“	To solicit contributions in California, charitable organizations must disclose to the state Attorney General’s Office the identities of their major donors. The State contends that having this information on hand makes it easier to police misconduct by charities. We must decide whether California's disclosure requirement violates the First Amendment right to free association. ... The District Court correctly entered judgment in favor of the petitioners and permanently enjoined the Attorney General from collecting their Schedule Bs. The Ninth Circuit erred by vacating those injunctions and directing entry of judgment for the Attorney General. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.	”
—Chief Justice John Roberts

Concurring opinion

Justice Thomas

Justice Clarence Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas wrote:

“	The Court correctly holds that California’s disclosure requirement violates the First Amendment. It also correctly concludes that the District Court properly enjoined California's attorney general from collecting the forms at issue, which contain sensitive donor information. But, while I agree with much of the Court’s opinion, I would approach three issues differently. First, the bulk of “our precedents . . . require application of strict scrutiny to laws that compel disclosure of protected First Amendment association.” Doe v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186, 232 (2010) (THOMAS, J., dissenting). California’s law fits that description. ... ... Second, the Court holds the law “overbroad” and, thus, invalid in all circumstances. Ante, at 16. But I continue to have “doubts about [the] origins and application” of our “overbreadth doctrine.” United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 1). ... ... Third, and relatedly, this Court also lacks the power “to pronounce that the statute is unconstitutional in all applications,’” even if the Court suspects that the law will likely be unconstitutional in every future application as opposed to just a substantial number of its applications. ... With those points of difference clarified, I join Parts I, II–A, II–B–2, and III–A of the majority’s opinion and concur in the judgment.	”
—Justice Clarence Thomas

Justice Alito

Justice Samuel Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Alito wrote:

“	I am pleased to join most of THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion .In particular, I agree that the exacting scrutiny standard drawn from our election-law jurisprudence has real teeth. It requires both narrow tailoring and consideration of alternative means of obtaining the sought-after information. See ante, at 9–11, 14–15 (opinion of the Court). For the reasons THE CHIEF JUSTICE explains, California’s blunderbuss approach to charitable disclosures fails exacting scrutiny and is facially unconstitutional. See ante, at 12–19 (opinion of the Court). The question is not even close. And for the same reasons, California’s approach necessarily fails strict scrutiny. THE CHIEF JUSTICE would hold that the particular exacting scrutiny standard in our election-law jurisprudence applies categorically “to First Amendment challenges to compelled disclosure.” Ante, at 7 (plurality opinion). JUSTICE THOMAS, by contrast, would hold that strict scrutiny applies in all such cases. See ante, at 1–2 (concurring opinion). I am not prepared at this time to hold that a single standard applies to all disclosure requirements. And I do not read our cases to have broadly resolved the question in favor of exacting scrutiny. ... Because the choice between exacting and strict scrutiny has no effect on the decision in these cases, I see no need to decide which standard should be applied here or whether the same level of scrutiny should apply in all cases in which the compelled disclosure of associations is challenged under the First Amendment.	”
—Justice Samuel Alito

Dissenting opinion

Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.

In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote:

“	Although this Court is protective of First Amendment rights, it typically requires that plaintiffs demonstrate an actual First Amendment burden before demanding that a law be narrowly tailored to the government’s interests, never mind striking the law down in its entirety. Not so today. Today, the Court holds that reporting and disclosure requirements must be narrowly tailored even if a plaintiff demonstrates no burden at all. The same scrutiny the Court applied when NAACP members in the Jim Crow South did not want to disclose their membership for fear of reprisals and violence now applies equally in the case of donors only too happy to publicize their names across the websites and walls of the organizations they support. ... In so holding, the Court discards its decades-long requirement that, to establish a cognizable burden on their associational rights, plaintiffs must plead and prove that disclosure will likely expose them to objective harms, such as threats, harassment, or reprisals. It also departs from the traditional, nuanced approach to First Amendment challenges, whereby the degree of means-end tailoring required is commensurate to the actual burdens on associational rights. Finally, it recklessly holds a state regulation facially invalid despite petitioners’ failure to show that a substantial proportion of those affected would prefer anonymity, much less that they are objectively burdened by the loss of it. Today’s analysis marks reporting and disclosure requirements with a bull’s-eye. Regulated entities who wish to avoid their obligations can do so by vaguely waving toward First Amendment “privacy concerns.” Ante, at 17. It does not matter if not a single individual risks experiencing a single reprisal from disclosure, or if the vast majority of those affected would happily comply. That is all irrelevant to the Court’s determination that California’s Schedule B requirement is facially unconstitutional. Neither precedent nor common sense supports such a result. I respectfully dissent.	”
—Justice Sonia Sotomayor

Text of the opinion

Read the full opinion here.

October term 2020-2021

See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021

The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 5, 2020. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.

The court issued 67 opinions during its 2020-2021 term. Two cases were decided in one consolidated opinion. Ten cases were decided without argument. Click here for more information on the court's opinions.

The court agreed to hear 62 cases during its 2020-2021 term. Of those, 12 were originally scheduled for the 2019-2020 term but were delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Five cases were removed from the argument calendar.

See also

• 

  Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021

• 

  Supreme Court of the United States

• 

  History of the Supreme Court

External links

Suggest a link

• Search Google News for this topic
• U.S. Supreme Court docket file - Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta (petitions, motions, briefs, opinions, and attorneys)
• SCOTUSblog case file for Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta
• U.S. Supreme Court docket file - Thomas More Law Center v. Bonta (petitions, motions, briefs, opinions, and attorneys)
• SCOTUSblog case file for Thomas More Law Center v. Bonta