The U.S. Supreme Court case Riley v. National Federation of the Blind of North Carolina, Inc., 1987 dealt with issues surrounding First Amendment rights and state regulation of professional fundraisers for charities. The State of North Carolina had enacted legislation requiring professional fundraisers to disclose to potential donors what percentage of charitable contributions was actually used for charitable purposes in previous years. The law also allowed the Secretary of State to deny a license if they deemed that the fundraising costs were too high or unreasonable, and it required paid solicitors to obtain a license before requesting donations on behalf of a charity. The National Federation for the Blind (NFB) challenged these regulations as unconstitutional under their First Amendment right to free speech. In its decision, the Supreme Court sided with NFB stating that mandatory disclosure provision was not narrowly tailored enough and could potentially chill protected speech; therefore it violated First Amendment protections. Similarly, giving power over licensing based on an official's perception about 'reasonable' fees gave too much discretion which could infringe upon freedom-of-speech rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Riley v. National Federation of the Blind, Justice White argued that North Carolina's law requiring professional fundraisers to disclose what percentage of donations they retain was not a violation of First Amendment rights. He believed that this requirement served a substantial state interest in protecting potential donors from misleading or fraudulent solicitations and did not necessarily inhibit speech. Furthermore, he contended that the majority's decision could potentially undermine other disclosure requirements aimed at preventing fraud or deception in various contexts beyond charitable solicitation. Thus, he disagreed with striking down these provisions as unconstitutional restrictions on free speech.