US Supreme Court Ruling: Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta

In Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (2021), the US Supreme Court struck down California’s requirement that not for profits disclose the names and addresses of their major donors to the state Attorney General. This might sound like an obscure legal battle over bereucracy and paperwork, but the implications go further, especially in regards to privacy and how government handles sensitive data.

The Case

The Californian government had required not for profits to submit, essentially confidential donor lists, as part of their registration. The state claimed this helped prevent fraud. But two not for profits, the Americans for Prosperity Foundation and the Thomas More Law Center, challenged the rule, arguing it impeded free speech and association, and discouraged donors from contributing, especially to controversial causes.

The Supreme Court sided with the not for profits in a 6–3 decision, holding that the disclosure requirement violated the First Amendment right to free association.

Broad Data Collection is a Problem

I support the Court's decision, mainly because I oppose broad data collection policies that gather sensitive personal information without a clearly defined and narrow purpose. In regards to the fraud argument, the presumption should be of innocence in regards to free association. The Californian government didn’t show why collecting this information from all not for profits, all the time, was necessary and proportionate. There is also the issue of keeping this data secure and the risks associated with this data being breached.

Blanket collection policies may sound efficient, but they rarely respect purpose or consent. This case underscores the need for data practices that are proportional, precise, and justified.

A First Amendment Case?

In this case, the Court’s opinion focused on the First Amendment, which not only projects free speech but also free association. While the reporting requirements in themselves don't limit free association, if the information were publicly available, people may fear retribution or stigma for their associations and their associated beliefs.

However I would’ve expected the legal arguments to revolve more around data privacy law rather than free association. After all, the more immediate concern is how the government collects, stores, and potentially misuses personal data, and what safeguards are in place to protect that data.

Still, the Court used the First Amendment as a stand in for those concerns, likely because it offers the stronger constitutional protection. The nature of the data, who you support and where you donate, touches on political and social identity, which is increasingly intertwined with speech and association rights.

What It Means Going Forward

This ruling doesn’t make donor disclosure illegal in general, it just sets a higher bar for when and how it can be required. If a state wants to investigate fraud, it needs to do so in a targeted, case-by-case way, not through sweeping data collection.

More broadly, Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta could become part of a growing legal framework that demands the government tread carefully when it comes to data collection, especially when that data is sensitive, personal, or political in nature.

Conclusion

In an age where data is the new currency, and privacy is constantly under threat, this case is a reminder that not all efficiencies are worth the cost. People's right to support causes they believe in, without being forced to hand over their information to the state for no clear reason, is worth protecting. Policies concerning data collection should be narrow, purpose driven, and respectful of individual rights.