Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-251_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2020 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY FOUNDATION v. 
BONTA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

No. 19–251.  Argued April 26, 2021—Decided July 1, 2021* 

Charitable organizations soliciting funds in California must disclose the
identities of their major donors to the state Attorney General’s Office. 
Charities generally must register with the Attorney General and re-
new their registrations annually.  The Attorney General requires char-
ities renewing their registrations to file copies of their Internal Reve-
nue  Service  Form  990,  a  form  on  which  tax-exempt  organizations
provide  information  about  their  mission,  leadership,  and  finances. 
Schedule B to Form 990—the document that gives rise to the present
dispute—requires organizations to disclose the names and addresses 
of their major donors.  The State contends that having this information
readily available furthers its interest in policing misconduct by chari-
ties.   

The  petitioners  are  two  tax-exempt  charities  that  solicit  contribu-
tions in California.  Since 2001, each petitioner has renewed its regis-
tration and has filed a copy of its Form 990 with the Attorney General, 
as required by Cal. Code Regs., tit. 11, §301.  To preserve their donors’ 
anonymity, however, the petitioners have declined to file unredacted
Schedule  Bs,  and  they  had  until  recently  faced  no  consequences  for 
noncompliance.  In 2010, the State increased its enforcement of chari-
ties’ Schedule B disclosure obligations, and the Attorney General ulti-
mately  threatened  the  petitioners  with  suspension  of  their  registra-
tions and fines for noncompliance.  The petitioners each responded by 

—————— 

* Together with No. 19–255, Thomas More Law Center v. Bonta, also 

on certiorari to the same court.