Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-251_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 9

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

5 

Opinion of the Court 

*4. 

The District Court also found that California was unable 
to ensure the confidentiality of donors’ information.  During 
the  course  of  litigation,  the  Foundation  identified  nearly
2,000 confidential Schedule Bs that had been inadvertently
posted to the Attorney General’s website, including dozens 
that were found the day before trial.  One of the Founda-
tion’s expert witnesses also discovered that he was able to 
access hundreds of thousands of confidential documents on 
the  website  simply  by  changing  a  digit  in  the  URL.    The 
court found after trial that “the amount of careless mistakes 
made by the Attorney General’s Registry is shocking.”  182 
F. Supp.  3d,  at  1057.
  And  although  California  subse-
quently  codified  a  policy  prohibiting  disclosure,  Cal.  Code
Regs.,  tit.  11,  §310(b)—an  effort  the  District  Court  de-
scribed  as  “commendable”—the  court  determined  that 
“[d]onors  and  potential  donors  would  be  reasonably  justi-
fied  in  a  fear  of  disclosure  given  such  a  context”  of  past
breaches.  2016 WL 6781090, *5. 

The Ninth Circuit again vacated the District Court’s in-
junctions,  and  this  time  reversed  the  judgments  and  re-
manded for entry of judgment in favor of the Attorney Gen-
eral.  903 F. 3d 1000.  The court held that the District Court 
had erred by imposing a narrow tailoring requirement.  Id., 
at 1008–1009.  And it reasoned that the disclosure regime
satisfied  exacting  scrutiny  because  the  up-front  collection 
of charities’ Schedule Bs promoted investigative efficiency
and effectiveness.  Id., at 1009–1012.  The panel also found 
that the disclosure of Schedule Bs would not meaningfully 
burden donors’ associational rights, in part because the At-
torney General had taken remedial security measures to fix
the confidentiality breaches identified at trial.  Id., at 1013– 
1019. 

The Ninth Circuit denied rehearing en banc.  Americans 
for Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra, 919 F. 3d 1177 (2019).
Judge Ikuta dissented, joined by four other judges.  In her