Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-251_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 2

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-
closed.  On remand, the District Court held bench trials in both cases, 
after which it entered judgment for the petitioners and permanently
enjoined the Attorney General from collecting their Schedule Bs.  Ap-
plying  exacting  scrutiny,  the  District  Court  held  that  disclosure  of 
Schedule Bs was not narrowly tailored to the State’s interest in inves-
tigating  charitable  misconduct.    The  court  found  little  evidence  that 
the  Attorney  General’s  investigators  relied  on  Schedule  Bs  to  detect
charitable  fraud,  and  it  determined  that  the  disclosure  regime  bur-
dened the associational rights of donors.  The District Court also found 
that California was unable to ensure the confidentiality of donors’ in-
formation.    The  Ninth  Circuit  again  vacated  the  District  Court’s  in-
junctions, and this time reversed the judgments and remanded for en-
try of judgment in favor of the Attorney General.  The Ninth Circuit 
held that the District Court had erred by imposing a narrow tailoring 
requirement.  And it reasoned that the disclosure regime satisfied ex-
acting  scrutiny  because  the  up-front  collection  of  charities’  Schedule 
Bs promoted investigative efficiency and effectiveness.  The panel also
found that the disclosure of Schedule Bs would not meaningfully bur-
den donors’ associational rights.  The Ninth Circuit denied rehearing 
en banc, over a dissent.   

Held: The judgment is reversed, and the cases are remanded. 

903 F. 3d 1000, reversed and remanded. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the Court with respect 
to all but Part II–B–1, concluding that California’s disclosure require-
ment is facially invalid because it burdens donors’ First Amendment 
rights and is not narrowly tailored to an important government inter-
est.  Pp. 6–7, 9–19.

(a) The  Court  reviews  the  petitioners’  First  Amendment  challenge