US high court asks solicitor general’s view of California donor disclosure law

The U.S. Supreme Court asked the solicitor general Monday to weigh in on an appeal of a ruling that upheld the constitutionality of a California law requiring nonprofits to disclose the names of its large donors to the state attorney general.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in March 2019 the state law was not unduly burdensome under the First Amendment, rejecting the objections of conservative nonprofits -- including Americans for Prosperity Foundation, backed by David H. and Charles Koch, and the Thomas More Law Center.

But Republican circuit appointees, led by Judge Sandra S. Ikuta, sharply dissented, citing a high court decision allowing the NAACP to keep the names of its donors private in the 1950s and suggesting the state laws put donors at risk of harassment.

"The Supreme Court has long recognized this danger and held that such compelled disclosures can violate the First Amendment right to association," she wrote.

California Attorney General Xavier Beerra's office argued successfully before the 9th Circuit that it uses the information from tax-exempt organizations to investigate fraud but does not make it public. The 9th Circuit majority cited a 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding a similar process in New York.

The Supreme Court's decision to seek the view of President Donald J. Trump's administration, which is likely to support Ikuta's dissent, raises the distinct possibility the high court plans to reverse the 9th Circuit. Americans for Prosperity v. Becerra, 19-251; Thomas More Law Center v. Becerra, 19-252.

State law requires tax-exempt organizations to disclose to the attorney general's office their Schedule B IRS 990 forms, which includes the names and addresses of individuals who give at least $5,000, or 2% of the group's annual budget.

Senior U.S. District JudgeManuel L. Real of the Central District sided with the nonprofits and granted an injunction. But a three-judge 9th Circuit panel reversed his decision in 2018. An en banc panel upheld that ruling last year.