Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-251_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 49.0

20  AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY FOUNDATION v. BONTA 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

by alerting an organization to the existence of an investiga-
tion, giving it a chance to hide assets or tamper with evi-
dence.  The  Court  dismisses  this  concern  as  unsubstanti-
ated.  Yet  one  Section  head  reported  that  this  had 
“happened several times,” and another testified to her per-
sonal experience with organizations “fabricat[ing]” and “de-
stroy[ing] records” after being tipped off to an investigation. 
16–55727 ER, at 590, 998–999.10  A State surely has a com-
pelling interest in ensuring that the subject of an investiga-
tion does not destroy evidence or hide funds before investi-
gators have an opportunity to find them.  Cf.  Kentucky v. 
King, 563 U. S. 452, 460 (2011) (“[T]he need to prevent the 
imminent destruction of evidence has long been recognized
as a sufficient justification for a warrantless search” (inter-
nal quotation marks omitted)).  The Court ignores those in-
terests here. 

IV 
In a final coup de grâce, the Court concludes that Califor-
nia’s reporting requirement is unconstitutional not just as 
applied  to  petitioners,  but  on  its  very  face.  “In  the  First 
Amendment context,” such broad relief requires proof that 
the requirement is unconstitutional in “ ‘a substantial num-
ber of . . . applications . . . , judged in relation to the stat-
ute’s plainly legitimate sweep.’ ”  United States v. Stevens, 
559 U. S. 460, 473 (2010).  “Facial challenges are disfavored
for several reasons,” prime among them because they “often
rest on speculation.”  Washington State Grange v. Washing-

—————— 

10 The Court asserts that “the actions of investigators” do not “suggest 
a risk of tipping off charities” because the Section’s standard practice is 
to send an audit letter early in an investigation.  Ante, at 14.  Where the 
Section suspects serious fraud, however, it obtains a temporary restrain-
ing  order  to  freeze  assets  before  ever  contacting  the  charity.    See  16– 
55727 ER, at  591.  The Section’s actions thus demonstrate exactly the
fear of tipping off charities that this Court so hastily dismisses.