Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-251_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 12

8 

AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY FOUNDATION v. BONTA 

Opinion of the Court 
Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J. 

that arises as an “inevitable result of the government’s con-
duct in requiring disclosure.”  Buckley, 424 U. S., at 65. 

The Law Center (but not the Foundation) argues that we
should apply strict scrutiny, not exacting scrutiny.  Under 
strict  scrutiny,  the  government  must  adopt  “the  least  re-
strictive  means  of  achieving  a  compelling  state  interest,” 
McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U. S. 464, 478 (2014), rather than
a means substantially related to a sufficiently important in-
terest.  The Law Center contends that only strict scrutiny
adequately  protects  the  associational  rights  of  charities. 
And although the Law Center acknowledges that we have
applied exacting scrutiny in prior disclosure cases, it argues
that  those  cases  arose  in  the  electoral  context,  where  the 
government’s important interests justify less searching re-
view. 

It is true that we first enunciated the exacting scrutiny
standard  in  a  campaign  finance  case.    See  Buckley,  424 
U. S.,  at  64–68.    And  we  have  since  invoked  it  in  other 
election-related settings.  See, e.g., Citizens United v. Fed-
eral Election Comm’n, 558 U. S. 310, 366–367 (2010); Davis 
v. Federal Election Comm’n, 554 U. S. 724, 744 (2008).  But 
exacting  scrutiny  is  not  unique  to  electoral  disclosure  re-
gimes.  To  the  contrary,  Buckley  derived  the  test  from 
NAACP  v.  Alabama  itself,  as  well  as  other  nonelection 
cases.  See 424 U. S., at 64 (citing Gibson v. Florida Legis-
lative Investigation Comm., 372 U. S. 539 (1963); NAACP v. 
Button, 371 U. S. 415 (1963); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 
479 (1960); Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U. S. 516 (1960)).  As 
we explained in NAACP v. Alabama, “it is immaterial” to 
the level of scrutiny “whether the beliefs sought to be ad-
vanced  by  association  pertain  to  political,  economic,  reli-
gious or cultural matters.”  357 U. S., at 460–461.  Regard-
less  of  the  type  of  association,  compelled  disclosure
requirements are reviewed under exacting scrutiny.