Thomas More Law Center v. Bonta

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 8 Jan 2021

1. Petitioner Thomas More Law Center is a Michigan 501(c)(3) that defends religious freedom, family values, and the sanctity of life. To fundraise, the Law Center registered with the California Attorney General and made annual filings to his Register of Charitable Trusts. After a decade of accepting these filings without complaints, the Attorney General deemed them insufficient because, although they included the Law Center’s IRS Form 990, they omitted Schedule B to that form, which identifies the Law Center’s major donors. After the Attorney General threatened to suspend its nonprofit registration and personally fine its directors and tax preparer, the Law Center filed suit to protect donor anonymity. The district court enjoined the Attorney General’s donor-disclosure rule because his office had an extensive record of disclosing that confidential material, and donors were likely to face harassment and threats as a result. Because this disclosure rule arises outside the electoral context, six circuits would apply strict scrutiny. But the Ninth Circuit upheld the rule, joining the Second Circuit in holding that “there is only a single test—exacting scrutiny—that applies both within and without the electoral context.” App.133a–34a. The questions presented are:
2. Whether exacting scrutiny or strict scrutiny applies to disclosure requirements that burden non-electoral, expressive association rights.
3. Whether California’s disclosure requirement violates charities’ and their donors’ freedom of association and speech facially or as applied to the Law Center.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The case involved a challenge to California's requirement that charities disclose the identities of their major donors to the state Attorney General. The Thomas More Law Center argued that this requirement violated their First Amendment rights by potentially deterring donations due to fear of public disclosure and harassment. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, holding that California’s blanket demand for donor information was not narrowly tailored and imposed an unnecessary burden on free association rights. The decision emphasized protecting donor privacy against government overreach unless there is a compelling interest with less intrusive means available.