Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-251_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 47

18  AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY FOUNDATION v. BONTA 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

In sum, the evidence shows that California’s confidential 
reporting requirement imposes trivial burdens on petition-
ers’ associational rights and plays a meaningful role in Sec-
tion attorneys’ ability to identify and prosecute charities en-
gaged in malfeasance.  That is more than enough to satisfy
the First Amendment here. 

2 
Much of the Court’s tailoring analysis is categorically in-
appropriate under the correct standard of review.  In any
event, the Court greatly understates the importance to Cal-
ifornia  of  collecting  information  on  charitable  organiza-
tions’ top donors.

The Court claims that the collection of Schedule Bs does 
not  form  an  “integral”  part  of  California’s  fraud  detection
efforts and has never done “ ‘anything’ ” to advance investi-
gative efforts.8  Ante, at 13.  The record reveals otherwise. 
As discussed, Section leaders report that they use Schedule 
Bs “[a]ll the time” and rely on them to create roadmaps for
their investigations.  App. in No. 19–251, at 413; see also
16–55727  ER,  at  717.    The  Court  further  complains  that 
California does not rely on Schedule Bs to “initiate” inves-
tigations.  Ante, at 15, 19.  But disclosure assists California 
in its decisions whether to advance or end an investigation. 
Perhaps the Court’s main concern is that California has not 
identified enough instances in which Schedule B played a
unique  role  in  prosecuting  charitable  malfeasance.    But 
“[l]ike a jigsaw puzzle,” investigations often advance “only 
by placing in the proper place the many pieces of evidence 

—————— 

8 The  Court  goes  so  far  as  to  suggest  that  the  State  does  not  rely  on 
Schedule B collection to “prevent and police fraud” and to imply the Dis-
trict Court found the same.  Ante, at 13–14.  Yet the District Court ex-
pressly acknowledged that it did “not doubt that the Attorney General
does in fact use the Schedule Bs it collects.”  Thomas More Law Center v. 
Harris, 2016 WL 6781090, *2 (CD Cal., Nov. 16, 2016).