About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 1 (July 13, 2021)

handle is hein.crs/goveebf0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Congressional ______ *Research Service informrng the Iegisltive debate since 19 4___________________ Supreme Court Invalidates California Donor Disclosure Rule on First Amendment Grounds July 13, 2021 On July 1, 2021, the Supreme Court struck down part of a California regulation requiring charitable organizations registered in the State to disclose their major donors to the State Attorney General's office-information the federal Internal Revenue Service (IRS) also collects. In Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, the Court ruled that the State's disclosure requirement violated the donors' First Amendment right to freedom of association. This Legal Sidebar provides an overview of the relevant constitutional standards, a summary of the case and the Court's decision, and a discussion of the decision's potential consequences for federal and state donor disclosure requirements. Freedom of Association and Disclosure Requirements The First Amendment does not explicitly mention the freedom of association. The Supreme Court, however, has long considered the freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas an inseparable aspect of . .. freedom of speech. This freedom includes, to some extent, the right to speak and associate anonymously. Thus, the compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy implicates protected associational rights. Although they are not the only Supreme Court cases on the compelled disclosure of affiliations, two decisions in particular are important for understanding the Justices' positions in Americans for Prosperity: the Court's 1958 decision in NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson and its 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo. NAACP involved an Alabama court's contempt order against the NAACP for refusing to disclose the names and addresses of its Alabama members in a dispute involving the organization's compliance with state business registration requirements. In evaluating whether disclosure of the organization's rank-and- file members to the State would violate the First Amendment, the Court recounted the uncontroverted evidence that on past occasions, publicly identified NAACP members were subject to economic reprisal, loss of employment, threat of physical coercion, and other manifestations of public hostility. It was apparent to the Court that the threat of these harms could lead current members to leave the NAACP or discourage others from joining it. The Court held that Alabama had not advanced an interest sufficient to justify the deterrent effect of the disclosures. The Court explained that knowing the NAACP's ordinary members' identities was Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov LSB10621 CRS Legal Sidebar Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most