Nonprofit donor privacy
Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta
In brief
The Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s ruling (reversed it) and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded it).
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 6-3 · July 1, 2021 · Opinion by Chief Justice Roberts
- What it’s about
- The California attorney general’s office required charities to give the state the names and addresses of major donors, saying the information helped investigate charitable fraud.
- Who it affects
- The Ninth Circuit’s judgment no longer controls after the Court wiped it out (reversed it) and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded it). The rule’s final effect in this case remains unresolved.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded), ruling that the requirement could not stand under the First Amendment because it was not closely fitted to an important government interest.
The case sits within a broader First Amendment debate about donor privacy, freedom of association, and government oversight of charities.
Question presented
Whether the exacting scrutiny this Court has long required of laws that abridge the freedoms of speech and association outside the election context — as called for by NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), and its progeny — can be satisfied absent any showing that a blanket governmental demand for the individual identities and addresses of major donors to private nonprofit organizations is narrowly tailored to an asserted law-enforcement interest.
What the Court decided
Holding
The judgment is reversed, and the cases are remanded. 903 F. 3d 1000, reversed and remanded.
- Result
- Reversed
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Concurred in a separate opinion
- Dissented
- Wrote an opinion
- Majority · 5joined the Court's opinion
- Concurring · 1agreed with the result, wrote separately
- Thomaswrote separately
From the opinions
“Although this Court is protective of First Amendment rights, it typically requires that plaintiffs demonstrate an actual First Amendment burden before demanding that a law be narrowly tailored to the government’s interests, never mind striking the law down in its entirety.”
What's next
The next step is further proceedings in the Ninth Circuit after the Supreme Court sent the case back (remanded it). The rule’s ultimate status in this case remains unresolved.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Show 7 moreShow fewer
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: status, opinion_date
Opinion added: opinion
Brief added: Petition
Brief added: Questions Presented
More questions
- What was Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta about?
- California required charities raising money in the state to give the attorney general major donors’ names and addresses. The charities said disclosure burdened privacy and freedom of association.
- What did the Supreme Court do in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta?
- The Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s judgment (reversed it) and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded it).
- What remains unresolved after the Supreme Court’s action?
- The final effect on California’s donor-disclosure rule remains unresolved. The case continues in the lower court after it was sent back (remanded).
- What happens next for Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta?
- The next step is further proceedings in the Ninth Circuit after the Supreme Court sent the case back (remanded it).
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.