Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-251_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 37

8 

AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY FOUNDATION v. BONTA 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

any burden if a disclosure law is not narrowly tailored).  

I disagree.  A reasonable assessment of the burdens im-
posed  by  disclosure  should  begin by  determining  whether 
those burdens even exist.  If a disclosure requirement im-
poses no burdens at all, then of course there are no “unnec-
essary” burdens.  Likewise, if a disclosure requirement im-
poses no burden for the Court to remedy, there is no need 
for it to be closely scrutinized.  By forgoing the requirement
that plaintiffs adduce evidence of tangible burdens, such as 
increased  vulnerability  to  harassment  or  reprisals,  the 
Court gives itself license to substitute its own policy prefer-
ences for those of politically accountable actors. 

B 

All this would be less troubling if the Court still required 
means-end  tailoring  commensurate  to  the  actual  burden 
imposed.    It  does  not.    Instead,  it  adopts  a  new  rule  that  
every reporting or disclosure requirement be narrowly tai-
lored.  See ante, at 9 (“While exacting scrutiny does not re-
quire that disclosure regimes be the least restrictive means
of  achieving  their  ends,  it  does  require  that  they  be  nar-
rowly tailored to the government’s asserted interest”). 

1 
Disclosure requirements burden associational rights only
indirectly and only in certain contexts.  For that reason, this 
Court has never necessarily demanded such requirements 
to be narrowly tailored. Rather, it has reserved such auto-
matic tailoring for state action that “directly and immedi-
ately affects associational rights.”  Boy Scouts of America v. 
Dale, 530 U. S. 640, 659 (2000); see also Buckley, 424 U. S., 
at 22, 25 (requiring a “closely drawn” fit for political contri-
bution limits, which directly “limit one important means of 
associating with a candidate or committee”).  When it comes 
to reporting and disclosure requirements, the Court has in-
stead  employed  a  more  flexible  approach,  which  it  has