Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-251_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 53.0

24  AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY FOUNDATION v. BONTA 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

down. 

* 

* 

* 
Today’s decision discards decades of First Amendment ju-
risprudence  recognizing  that  reporting  and  disclosure  re-
quirements  do  not  directly  burden  associational  rights.
There  is  no  other  explanation  for  the  Court’s  conclusion 
that, first, plaintiffs do not need to show they are actually
burdened by a disclosure requirement; second, every disclo-
sure  requirement  demands  narrow  tailoring;  and  third,  a 
facial challenge can succeed in the absence of any evidence
a state law burdens the associational rights of a substantial
proportion of affected individuals.

That  disclosure  requirements  directly  burden  associa-
tional rights has been the view of JUSTICE THOMAS, see id., 
at 232 (dissenting opinion), but it has never been the view 
of  this  Court.    Just  11  years  ago,  eight  Members  of  the 
Court, including two Members of the current majority, rec-
ognized that disclosure requirements do not directly inter-
fere with First Amendment rights.  See id., at 196 (majority 
opinion).    In  an  opinion  barely  mentioned  in  today’s  deci-
sion, the Court in Reed did the opposite of what the Court
does today.  First, it demanded objective evidence that dis-
closure risked exposing supporters to threats and reprisals;
second, it required only a loose means-end fit in light of the 
“modest” burden it found; and third, it rejected a facial chal-
lenge given petitioners’ failure to establish that signatories
to the “typical” referendum had any reason to fear disclo-
sure.  See id., at 200–201.  In so doing, the Court ensured 
that  it  would  not  “short  circuit  the  democratic  process  by
preventing laws embodying the will of the people from be-
ing implemented in a manner consistent with the Constitu-
tion.”  Washington State Grange, 552 U. S., at 451.   

The Court 11 years later apparently has a different view 
of its role.  It now calls upon the federal courts to serve “as
virtually continuing monitors of the wisdom and soundness