Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta | |
---|---|
Argued April 26, 2021 Decided July 1, 2021 | |
Full case name | Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California; Thomas More Law Center v. Rob Bonta, Attorney General of California |
Docket nos. | 19-251 19-255 |
Citations | 594 U.S. ___ (more) 141 S.Ct. 2373 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Holding | |
The requirement for non-profit organizations to disclose their donors under California law is facially invalid because it burdens the First Amendment rights of the donors and it is not also narrowly tailored to an important interest of government. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Roberts (except as to Part II–B–1), joined by Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett; Thomas (except Parts II–B–1 and III–B) |
Plurality | Roberts (Part II–B–1), joined by Kavanaugh, Barrett |
Concurrence | Thomas (in part and in the judgment) |
Concurrence | Alito (in part and in the judgment), joined by Gorsuch |
Dissent | Sotomayor, joined by Breyer, Kagan |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. I |
Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, 141 S.Ct. 2373 (2021), is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the disclosure of donors to non-profit organizations. The case challenged California's requirement that non-profit organizations disclose the identity of their donors to the state's Attorney General as a precondition of soliciting donations in the state. The case was consolidated with Thomas More Law Center v. Bonta. In July 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that California's requirement burdened the donors' First Amendment rights, was not narrowly tailored, and was constitutionally invalid.
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search