Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-251_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 48.0

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

19 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

that,  taken  singly,  would  show  comparatively  little.”    An-
dresen v. Maryland, 427 U. S. 463, 481, n. 10 (1976). 

The Court next insists that California can rely on alter-
native mechanisms, such as audit letters or subpoenas, to
obtain Schedule B information.  But the Section receives as 
many as 100 charity-related complaints a month.  App. in
No. 19–251, at 307.  It is not feasible for the Section, which 
has limited staff and resources, to conduct that many au-
dits.  See Appellant-Cross-Appellee’s Excerpts of Record in 
No. 16–56855 etc. (CA9), pp. 512–513.  The subpoena pro-
cess is also time consuming: Letters must go through mul-
tiple layers of review and waiting for a response causes fur-
ther  delays  during  which  a  charity  can  continue  its 
malfeasance.  App. in No. 19–251, at 412.

Implicitly acknowledging that audits and subpoenas are 
more cumbersome and time consuming, the Court trivial-
izes the State’s interest in what it calls “ease of administra-
tion.”  Ante, at 15.  Yet in various contexts, the Court has 
recognized that an interest in “efficiency” is critical to the 
effective operation of public agencies.9  See, e.g., Bailey v. 
United States, 568 U. S. 186, 200 (2013) (“[T]he law enforce-
ment  interests  in  conducting  a  safe  and  efficient  search” 
justify detaining “occupants on the premises during the ex-
ecution of a search warrant”); Civil Service Comm’n v. Let-
ter Carriers, 413 U. S. 548, 564 (1973) (seeking a constitu-
tional  balance  between  the  interests  of  a  government
employee in commenting on matters of public concern and 
the interest of the government in the efficiency of the ser-
vices it performs).

In addition to being burdensome, audit letters and sub-
poenas  can  also  significantly  undercut  the  Section’s  work 

—————— 

9 Of course, an interest in efficiency cannot justify constitutional viola-
tions,  but  it  is  an  important  governmental  interest  when  deciding 
whether a constitutional violation has taken place at all.  See Bailey v. 
United States, 568 U. S. 186, 199–200 (2013).