Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta.
The Supreme Court reviewed California's requirement for charitable organizations to disclose major donors to the state Attorney General, finding it burdensome to First Amendment rights. The Court applied exacting scrutiny, determining the requirement was not narrowly tailored to a sufficiently important governmental interest. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit was reversed, and the case was remanded.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta.
The Court held that California's disclosure requirement is facially invalid because it burdens donors' First Amendment rights and is not narrowly tailored to an important government interest.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Free Speech is relevant to Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta
The case primarily involves a First Amendment challenge to a compelled disclosure requirement, which burdens the right to free association, a component of free speech.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)California's disclosure requirement is facially invalid because it burdens donors' First Amendment rights and is not narrowly tailored to an important government interest.
-
Why Substantive Due Process is relevant to Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta
The Court applies exacting scrutiny, which involves assessing whether the law is narrowly tailored to serve a sufficiently important governmental interest, implicating substantive due process principles.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Exacting scrutiny requires that a government-mandated disclosure regime be narrowly tailored to the government's asserted interest.
-
Why Procedural Due Process is relevant to Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta
The case involves procedural aspects of how the disclosure requirement is applied and whether it provides adequate protection for associational rights.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Court reviews the petitioners' First Amendment challenge to California's compelled disclosure requirement with the understanding that 'compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may constitute as effective a restraint on freedom of association as [other] forms of governmental action.'
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta that support the summary and concepts above.
"California's disclosure requirement is facially unconstitutional."
"The Court reviews the petitioners' First Amendment challenge to California's compelled disclosure requirement."
"The judgment is reversed, and the cases are remanded."
