[PJ Media] On Monday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the key First Amendment case Americans for Prosperity v. Rodriguez, which centers on the State of California’s requirement that nonprofit organizations disclose their donor information to the state. Back in 2015, then-Attorney General Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) demanded that two conservative nonprofits, Americans for Prosperity (AFP) and the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), hand over their donor lists. This demand threatened to reveal the identities of donors, potentially subjecting them to threats and harassment.Doxxing - a word not included in the 2000 dictionary.
Legal representatives for AFP and TMLC said the Supreme Court justices’ questions and remarks suggested they are likely to strike down California’s requirement as an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.
Keep yer fingers crossed.
"The justices appreciated very well that membership and donations to an organization are protected by a right to privacy in association, not just a right to associate," legal counsel for Americans for Prosperity Foundation, said on a press call after the oral arguments on Monday.
She noted that the justices cited many friend-of-the-court briefs written by ideological opponents of AFP and TMLC that nonetheless support these conservative organizations’ rights to donor anonymity. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) proved particularly noteworthy in this regard.
Excellent. Turning the left's heroes back on their new positions.
John Bursch, legal counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and a lawyer for TMLC, cited specific statements or questions that the justices made during oral arguments.
He noted that Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested that a ruling for California might allow the government to demand the addresses of donors that nonprofits use when they send out Christmas cards.
Not until they decide to cancel Christmas.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh cited the fact that the ACLU, the NAACP, and HRC came forward in opposition to Kamala Harris's donor disclosure mandate.
Precedent!
Justice Clarence Thomas "explained that the government used confidential census data information to locate Japanese citizens for internment," Bursch noted. "Sotomayor noted that donors may not have faith in California" because the state had leaked the records of more than 1,700 donors.
When California's lawyers argued that most non-profits would not object to providing donor lists, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said, "That's not how the First Amendment works." She noted that speech zones on college campuses may violate the First Amendment even if most students support speech zones.
Logic!
While California claims the Kamala Harris donor disclosure mandate is necessary for fraud investigations, Bursch noted that "California has never used the schedule B information that it collects in advance" for its investigations, and it "never has a problem getting that information after the fact."
California's lawyers have claimed that it is advantageous for the state to have donor information at its fingertips. Bursch wryly noted, "It might also be advantageous to the government to allow officials to warrantlessly go into homes. That would certainly deter criminals from acting, but the violations [to Americans' constitutional rights] are outrageously disproportionate."
Power! More power!
Brian Hauss, an attorney with the ACLU, joined Sullivan and Bursch on the call, even though the ACLU does not represent any of the parties in the case. "Certainly, we don't see eye to eye with the petitioners in this case on every issue," Hauss began in a massive understatement. "However, First Amendment rights apply to everyone."
Even conservatives and white supremacists. But not Trump voters.
Hauss noted that, since the information of 1,700 donors had been leaked from California before ‐ including Planned Parenthood donors ‐ "it is entirely reasonable for donors to fear that their private information will become public."
"California cannot require charities to disclose the identities of their donors if the state cannot guarantee that that information will remain confidential," the ACLU lawyer insisted.
Not only confidential, but also not used for nefarious purposes, such as the internment of citizens based on the ancestry (1942). Or the cancelling of conservatives.