Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-251_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 24

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

1 

THOMAS, J., concurring
Opinion of THOMAS, J. 

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  THOMAS,  concurring  in  Parts  I,  II–A,  II–B–2,

and III–A, and concurring in the judgment. 

The Court correctly holds that California’s disclosure re-
quirement violates the First Amendment.  It also correctly 
concludes that the District Court properly enjoined Califor-
nia’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.    Although  the  Court  rightly  holds  that
even  the  less  demanding  “exacting  scrutiny”  standard  re-
quires  narrow  tailoring  for  laws  that  compel  disclosure, 
ante, at 9–11, invoking exacting scrutiny is at odds with our