Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-251_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 28.0

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

1 

ALITO, J., concurring
Opinion of ALITO, 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 ALITO, with whom JUSTICE GORSUCH joins, con-
curring in Parts I, II–A, II–B–2, and III, and concurring in 
the judgment. 

I am pleased to join most of THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion.
In particular, I agree  that the exacting scrutiny standard
drawn from our election-law jurisprudence has real teeth.
It requires both narrow tailoring and consideration of alter-
native  means  of  obtaining  the  sought-after  information.
See ante, at 9–11, 14–15 (opinion of the Court).  For the rea-
sons THE CHIEF JUSTICE explains, California’s blunderbuss 
approach  to  charitable  disclosures  fails  exacting  scrutiny
and is facially unconstitutional.  See ante, at 12–19 (opinion 
of the Court).  The question is not even close.  And for the 
same reasons, California’s approach necessarily fails strict
scrutiny.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE would hold that the particular exact-
ing scrutiny standard in our election-law jurisprudence ap-