Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-251_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 16.0

12  AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY FOUNDATION v. BONTA 

Opinion of the Court 

III 
The Foundation and the Law Center both argued below
that the obligation to disclose Schedule Bs to the Attorney
General was unconstitutional on its face and as applied to
them.  See 903 F. 3d, at 1007.  The petitioners renew their 
facial challenge in this Court, and they argue in the alter-
native  that  they  are  entitled  to  as-applied  relief.  For  the 
reasons  below,  we  conclude  that  California’s  blanket  de-
mand for Schedule Bs is facially unconstitutional. 

A 
As explained, exacting scrutiny requires that there be “a
substantial  relation  between  the  disclosure  requirement
and a sufficiently important governmental interest,” Reed, 
561  U. S.,  at  196  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted),  and 
that the disclosure requirement be narrowly tailored to the
interest  it  promotes,  see  Shelton,  364  U. S.,  at  488.    The 
Ninth Circuit found that there was a substantial relation 
between  the  Attorney  General’s  demand  for  Schedule  Bs
and a sufficiently strong governmental interest.  903 F. 3d, 
at 1008–1020.  Of particular relevance, the court found that 
California  had  such  an  interest  in  preventing  charitable 
fraud and self-dealing, and that “the up-front collection of 
Schedule B information improves the efficiency and efficacy 
of the Attorney General’s important regulatory efforts.”  Id., 
at 1011–1012.  The court did not apply a narrow tailoring
requirement, however, because it did not read our cases to
mandate  any  such  inquiry.    Id.,  at  1008–1009.    That  was 
error.  And properly applied, the narrow tailoring require-
ment is not satisfied by the disclosure regime. 

We do not doubt that California has an important inter-
est in preventing wrongdoing by charitable organizations. 
It goes without saying that there is a “substantial govern-
mental  interest[ ]  in  protecting  the  public  from  fraud.” 
Schaumburg v. Citizens for Better Environment, 444 U. S. 
620,  636  (1980)  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted).    The