Supreme Court Strikes Down Disclosure Rules for Political Donors
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a California law that required nonprofits to disclose lists of their biggest donors, holding the requirement burdened donors’ First Amendment rights and was not narrowly tailored to an important government interest.
In a 6-3 ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court said California had subjected donors to the threat of public harassment and intimidation, undermining their First Amendment right to free association.
The California law at the center of the litigation required nonprofits to give the state a list of their biggest donors every year. In theory, under the law, the state was supposed to keep that information private, but according to briefs filed in the case the state has often made donors names and addresses available to the general public.
Americans for Prosperity and other conservative nonprofits sued, saying California’s pattern of making donor information public actually put individual donors in physical danger — especially in the current, highly charged political climate.
The ACLU and the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund joined the case on the side of the conservative groups, arguing that California’s pattern of donor disclosure was comparable to methods used in the 1950s and 1960s to intimidate civil rights activists and others.
California, meanwhile, argued that collecting the information was simply a way to prevent potential election fraud.
In response, Roberts wrote that “[w]e do not doubt that California has an important interest in preventing wrongdoing by charitable organizations” there “is a dramatic mismatch … between the interest that the attorney general seeks to promote and the disclosure regime that he has implemented in service of that end.”
The chief justice went on to say there “was not ‘a single concrete instance in which pre-investigation collection of [information] did anything to advance the attorney general’s investigative, regulatory, or enforcement efforts.”
“In reality, then, California’s interest is less in investigating fraud and more in ease of administration. This interest, however, cannot justify the disclosure requirement,” he wrote.
In The News
JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court should overturn its landmark 1973 ruling that legalized abortion nationwide and let states decide whether to regulate abortion before a fetus can survive outside the womb, the office of Mississippi's Republican attorney general argued in papers filed Thursday... Read More
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court plans to hear a case in its next term that could expand rights of discrimination victims to collect compensation for "emotional distress." A ruling that allows the compensation could widely broaden the liability for discrimination, potentially allowing anyone victimized by... Read More
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a California law that required nonprofits to disclose lists of their biggest donors, holding the requirement burdened donors’ First Amendment rights and was not narrowly tailored to an important government interest. In a 6-3 ruling authored by... Read More
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday to uphold two provisions of Arizona’s election law that critics argued unfairly impinged on the rights of Black, Hispanic and Native Americans voters. By a 6-3 margin, the justices held that a 2016 law that limits who can return... Read More
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday a company building a natural gas pipeline in New Jersey can continue to rely on eminent domain to claim state land in its path. The 5-4 ruling by the court included both liberal and conservative members of the court... Read More
WASHINGTON (AP) — A closely watched voting rights dispute from Arizona is among five cases standing between the Supreme Court and its summer break. But even before the justices wrap up their work, likely later this week, they could say whether they'll add more high-profile issues... Read More