Supreme Court Smacks Down Kamala Harris and California AG for Violating First Amendment

[mystery-ak]

Supreme Court Smacks Down Kamala Harris and California AG for Violating First Amendment

Katherine Hamilton 1 Jul 2021

The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) on Thursday sided with the Americans For Prosperity Foundation (AFP) against Acting California Attorney General Matthew Rodriguez in favor of keeping non-profit donor records private, smacking down a measure pushed by Vice President Kamala Harris that conservatives feared could be used to target them.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority in a 6-3 decision that California’s disclosure requirement is invalid because it burdens donors’ First Amendment rights and is not narrowly tailored to an important government interest.

While Vice President Kamala Harris was still Attorney General of California, she sent a letter to AFP in 2013 asking the non-profit to send Schedule B forms to disclose its largest donors. A Schedule B is a highly confidential form that lists the names and addresses of a charity’s major donors—including those who live outside of California, according to the Cato Institute.

AFP declined to send the forms, saying doing so would dissuade people from donating and would violate the First Amendment.

more
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/07/01/supreme-court-smacks-down-kamala-harris-and-california-ag-for-violating-first-amendment/

[PeteS in CA]

Supreme Court Ends Term with Two 6-3 Splits Along Familiar Lines

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/01/supreme-court-ends-term-with-two-6-3-splits-along-familiar-lines/

The final opinion of the term came in Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the Court, concluding that California's donor disclosure requirement is facially invalid because it burdens donors' First Amendment rights and is not narrowly tailored to an important government interest. This case also produced a 6-3 split along ideological lines, but the majority splintered on some issues. Here's the full breakdown:

I think "facially invalid" is legalese for "grossly obviously unconstitutional".