Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-251_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 33.0

4 

AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY FOUNDATION v. BONTA 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

contexts.  Importantly, however, the Foundation and Law 
Center failed to show that such consequences would result 
from the confidential submission of their top donors’ identi-
ties  to  California’s  attorney  general’s  office  in  light  of  the
security mechanisms the office has now implemented. 

II 
Because the freedom to associate needs “breathing space
to  survive,”  NAACP  v.  Button,  371  U. S.  415,  433  (1963), 
this Court has recognized that associational rights must be
“protected  not  only  against  heavy-handed  frontal  attack,
but also from being stifled by more subtle governmental in-
terference,” Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U. S. 516, 523 (1960).
Publicizing individuals’ association with particular groups
might expose members to harassment, threats, and repris-
als by opponents of those organizations.  Individuals may 
choose to disassociate themselves from a group altogether 
rather than face such backlash. 

Acknowledging  that  risk,  this  Court  has  observed  that
“privacy  in  group  association  may in  many  circumstances 
be indispensable to preservation of freedom of association, 
particularly  where  a  group  espouses  dissident  beliefs.” 
NAACP  v.  Alabama  ex  rel.  Patterson,  357  U. S.  449,  462 
(1958).  That  observation  places  special  emphasis  on  the 
risks actually resulting from disclosure.  Privacy “may” be
indispensable to the preservation of freedom of association, 
but it need not be.  It depends on whether publicity will lead
to  reprisal.  For  example,  privacy  can  be  particularly  im-
portant to “dissident” groups because the risk of retaliation 
against their supporters may be greater.  For groups that
promote  mainstream  goals  and  ideas,  on  the  other  hand, 
privacy may not be all that important.  Not only might their 
supporters feel agnostic about disclosing their association,
they might actively seek to do so. 

Given the indeterminacy of how disclosure requirements