Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (19-251)

argument 19-251

Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 44m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What constitutional issue does the case of Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta raise?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We will hear argument first this morning in case nineteen two fifty one Americans for Prosperity Foundation versus Bonta and the consolidated case. mister Schaefer.

Harold J. Schaefer 0:12

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court. We're here because the California Attorney General is demanding that tens of thousands of charities annually disclose their top donors nationwide, as listed on Schedule B to IRS Form 990. This demand casts a profound nationwide chill, and it does so for no good reason, Your Honors. As the district court found following a full bench trial, California's upfront collection of Schedule B's does not further the state's law enforcement goals. That finding is both dispositive and unassailable. Forty six states today please charities without any such blanket demand. California itself likewise did so for years, your honors, without any problems. These Schedule Bs never find any legitimate use unless and until a complaint comes in, as happens for only a fraction of one percent of all charities.

Harold J. Schaefer 1:03

Even when reviewed, Schedule B's for all of their extreme sensitivity have only trifling utility. California used them in only a handful of investigations over ten years. The rare times when Schedule B has use, your honors, California has much narrower me narrower means to obtain it, namely a targeted audited letter audit letter to the charity of concern. Indeed, it's California's standard practice to issue precisely such an audit letter requesting Schedule B's and other documentation from any charity it investigates. At bottom, California's justification reduces to a claimed law enforcement interest in having all Schedule B's prophylactically warehoused before it re requests Schedule B pursuant to any actual investigation.

Harold J. Schaefer 1:47

That does not begin to justify the First Amendment intrusions here posed, as forty amicus briefs from hundreds of concerned parties spanning the spectrum agree. Because California's upfront, suspicionless demand for donor information is not narrowly tailored, as it must be under this court's precedence. It is unconstitutional in all its applications and certainly in a substantial number of them. We respectfully urge this court to hold it facially invalid.

John G. Roberts 2:14

Uh Mr. Schaefer, um your main argument is that we should apply strict scrutiny uh uh to the disclosure requirements here. Um but with respect to political speech, which is uh we've held is of course at the heart of the First Amendment. Uh when we have an issue of compelled disclosure we apply exacting scrutiny. Um and doesn't it seem strange that when it's you're talking about uh charitable uh uh association uh you would apply a more rigorous test than we apply to political association?

Harold J. Schaefer 2:53

Well, Mr. Chief Justice, I hate to dispute your premise, but I think that among the petitioners, it's the Thomas More Law Center that urges strict scrutiny. We of Americans for Prosperity Foundation have no quarrel with that. We think they make the argument well for that standard. But but the prime imperative for the petitioners, Your Honor, is simply to stress that under any standard of exacting scrutiny that calls for narrow tailoring, this law is d this demand is facially invalid. And due to be h due to be struck down across the board. Well, Sorry, Mr Chief Judge. I

John G. Roberts 3:24

was going to say thank you for the uh correction. But when it comes to uh tailoring, what ex what exactly is your understanding? I think Uh what that means. I think it's uh not well settled under the exacting scrutiny standard.

Harold J. Schaefer 3:38

Well, I think Shelton gives you the holding, Mr. Chief Justice. Shelton specifically struck down the demand that teachers disclose their associations, and it did so for lack of of proper tailoring, even while recognizing that there might be a substantial relationship to the understandable goal of protecting kids in schools. And so it you have the holding there.

Harold J. Schaefer 4:03

Buckley does speak in terms of strict scrutiny, it simply holds that disclosure is the least restrictive in that least restrictive alternative in that context, categorically different from this context, and one where of course there's an interest in public disclosure that California disavows in this case.