Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-251_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 44.0

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

15 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

tailoring for every single disclosure regime.  The Court thus 
trades precision for blunt force, creating a significant risk 
that it will topple disclosure regimes that should be consti-
tutional, and that, as in Reed, promote important govern-
mental interests. 

III 
A 
Under a First Amendment analysis that is faithful to this
Court’s precedents, California’s Schedule B requirement is
constitutional.  Begin with the burden it imposes on associ-
ational  rights.    Petitioners  have  unquestionably  provided 
evidence that their donors face a reasonable probability of 
threats, harassment, and reprisals if their affiliations are 
made public.  See ante, at 4.  California’s Schedule B regu-
lation, however, is a nonpublic reporting requirement, and 
California  has  implemented  security  measures  to  ensure
that Schedule B information remains confidential.7 

Nor have petitioners shown that their donors, or any or-
ganization’s  donors,  will  face  threats,  harassment,  or  re-
prisals if their names remain in the hands of a few Califor-
nia  state  officials.  The  Court  notes  that,  under  Shelton, 
disclosure  requirements  can  chill  association  even  absent 
public  disclosure.  See  ante,  at  16.    In  Shelton,  however, 

—————— 

7 Although in the Court’s view, the actual risk of reprisals is apparently
irrelevant, the Court notes that the District Court concluded that Cali-
fornia’s attorney general could not ensure the confidentiality of Schedule 
B information.  See ante, at 17, n.  But the Ninth Circuit held this finding 
to be clearly erroneous because the District Court rested its conclusion 
“solely on the state’s past inability to ensure confidentiality.”  903 F. 3d, 
at  1019  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted).    The  District  Court  never 
explained why the current security measures were insufficient to protect 
donors’ confidentiality.  As the Ninth Circuit observed, “the changes the 
Attorney General has adopted since those breaches occurred” show that 
the “risk of inadvertent disclosure of any Schedule B information in the 
future  is  small,  and  the  risk  of  inadvertent  disclosure  of  the  plaintiffs’ 
Schedule B information in particular is smaller still.”  Ibid.; see also n. 1, 
supra.