Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-251_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 30.0

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

1 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

Nos. 19–251 and 19–255 
_________________ 

AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY FOUNDATION, 
PETITIONER 
19–251 
v. 
ROB BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA 

THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER, PETITIONER 
19–255 
v. 
ROB BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA 

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

[July 1, 2021]

 JUSTICE  SOTOMAYOR,  with  whom  JUSTICE  BREYER  and 

JUSTICE KAGAN join, dissenting. 

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 do-
nors only too happy to publicize their names across the web-
sites and walls of the organizations they support.   

California oversees nearly a quarter of this Nation’s char-
itable assets.  As part of that oversight, it investigates and 
prosecutes  charitable  fraud,  relying  in  part  on  a  registry