Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-251_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 18

14  AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY FOUNDATION v. BONTA 

Opinion of the Court 

collection to prevent and police fraud.  See post, at 18–19. 
But  the  record  before  the  District  Court  tells  a  different 
story.  See, e.g., App. in No. 19–251, at 397, 403, 417.  And 
even if the State relied on up-front collection in some cases, 
its  showing  falls  far  short  of  satisfying  the  means-end  fit 
that exacting scrutiny requires.  California is not free to en-
force  any  disclosure  regime  that  furthers  its  interests.    It 
must instead demonstrate its need for universal production 
in light of any less intrusive alternatives.  Cf. Shelton, 364 
U. S., at 488. 

The Attorney General and the dissent contend that alter-
native means of obtaining Schedule B information—such as
a  subpoena  or  audit  letter—are  inefficient  and  ineffective 
compared to up-front collection.  See post, at 19.  It became 
clear at trial, however, that the Office had not even consid-
ered  alternatives  to  the  current  disclosure  requirement.
See App. in No. 19–251, at 421 (“I see no reason to change 
what  we’ve  been  doing.”).    The  Attorney  General  and  the 
dissent also argue that a targeted  request for Schedule  B 
information  could  tip  a  charity  off,  causing  it  to  “hide  or 
tamper with evidence.”  Brief for Respondent 43; see post,
at  19–20.  But  again,  the  States’  witnesses  failed  to  sub-
stantiate  that  concern.  See,  e.g.,  App.  in  No.  19–251,  at 
405–406; see also Board of Trustees of State Univ. of N. Y. 
v.  Fox,  492  U. S.  469,  480  (1989)  (“the  State  . . .  must  af-
firmatively establish the reasonable fit we require”).  Nor 
do the actions of investigators suggest a risk of tipping off 
charities  under  suspicion,  as  the  standard  practice  is  to 
send  audit  letters  asking  for  a  wide  range  of  information
early in the investigative process.  See App. in No. 19–251, 
at 406, 411, 418.  Furthermore, even if tipoff were a concern 
in  some  cases,  the  State’s  indiscriminate  collection  of 
Schedule Bs in all cases would not be justified.

The upshot is that California casts a dragnet for sensitive 
donor information from tens of thousands of charities each 
year, even though that information will become relevant in