Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-251_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 19.0

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

15 

Opinion of the Court 

only  a  small  number  of  cases  involving  filed  complaints. 
See id., at 307–308.  California does not rely on Schedule 
Bs  to  initiate  investigations,  and  in  all  events,  there  are 
multiple alternative mechanisms through which the Attor-
ney General can obtain Schedule B information after initi-
ating an investigation.  The need for up-front collection is
particularly  dubious  given  that  California—one  of  only 
three States to impose such a requirement, see id., at 420— 
did  not  rigorously  enforce  the  disclosure  obligation  until 
2010.  Certainly, this is not a regime “whose scope is in pro-
portion to the interest served.”  McCutcheon, 572 U. S., at 
218 (internal quotation marks omitted).

In reality, then, California’s interest is less in investigat-
ing fraud and more in ease of administration.  This interest, 
however,  cannot  justify  the  disclosure  requirement.    The 
Attorney  General  may  well  prefer  to  have  every  charity’s 
information close at hand, just in case.  But “the prime ob-
jective of the First Amendment is not efficiency.”  McCullen, 
573  U. S.,  at  495.    Mere  administrative  convenience  does 
not remotely “reflect the seriousness of the actual burden”
that the demand for Schedule Bs imposes on donors’ asso-
ciation rights.  Reed, 561 U. S., at 196 (internal quotation 
marks omitted). 

B 
The  foregoing  discussion  also  makes  clear  why  a  facial
challenge is appropriate in these cases.  Normally, a plain-
tiff bringing a facial challenge must “establish that no set 
of  circumstances  exists  under  which  the  [law]  would  be 
valid,” United States v. Salerno, 481 U. S. 739, 745 (1987), 
or  show  that  the  law  lacks  “a  plainly  legitimate  sweep,” 
Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican 
Party, 552 U. S. 442, 449 (2008) (internal quotation marks 
omitted).  In  the  First  Amendment  context,  however,  we 
have recognized “a second type of facial challenge, whereby