Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-251_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 21.0

Cite as:  594 U. S. ____ (2021) 

17 

Opinion of the Court 

surances of confidentiality may reduce the burden of disclo-
sure to the State, they do not eliminate it.* 

It  is  irrelevant,  moreover,  that  some  donors  might  not 
mind—or might even prefer—the disclosure of their identi-
ties  to  the State.    The  disclosure requirement  “creates  an 
unnecessary  risk  of  chilling”  in  violation  of  the  First 
Amendment, Secretary of State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson 
Co.,  467  U. S.  947,  968  (1984),  indiscriminately  sweeping 
up the information of every major donor with reason to re-
main anonymous.  The petitioners here, for example, intro-
duced  evidence  that  they  and  their  supporters  have  been 
subjected to bomb threats, protests, stalking, and physical
violence.  App. in No. 19–251, at 256, 291–292.  Such risks 
are heightened in the 21st century and seem to grow with 
each  passing  year,  as  “anyone  with  access  to  a  computer
[can]  compile  a  wealth  of  information  about” anyone  else,
including such sensitive details as a person’s home address
or the school attended by his children.  Reed, 561 U. S., at 
208 (ALITO, J., concurring). 

The gravity of the privacy concerns in this context is fur-
ther underscored by the filings of hundreds of organizations 
as amici curiae in support of the petitioners.  Far from rep-
resenting  uniquely  sensitive  causes,  these  organizations
span the ideological spectrum, and indeed the full range of 

—————— 

* Here  the  State’s  assurances  of  confidentiality  are  not  worth  much. 
The  dissent  acknowledges  that  the  Foundation  and  Law  Center  “have 
unquestionably  provided  evidence  that  their  donors  face  a  reasonable 
probability of threats, harassment, and reprisals if their affiliations are 
made public,” but it concludes that the petitioners have no cause for con-
cern because the Attorney General “has implemented security measures
to ensure that Schedule B information remains confidential.”  Post, at 15 
(opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.).  The District Court—whose findings, again, 
we review only for clear error—disagreed.  After two full bench trials, the 
court found that the Attorney General’s promise of confidentiality “rings 
hollow,” and that “[d]onors and potential donors would be reasonably jus-
tified in a fear of disclosure.”  Thomas More Law Center v. Harris, 2016 
WL 6781090, *5 (CD Cal., Nov. 16, 2016).