Ctr. for Competitive Politics v. Harris, No. 14-15978 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseThe IRS requires non-profit educational and charitable organizations registered under 24 U.S.C. 501(c)(3) to disclose the names and contributions of their "significant donors" on Form 990 Schedule B. CCP filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, seeking to enjoin the Attorney General from requiring it to file an unredacted Form 990 Schedule B. The court affirmed the district court's denial of CCP's motion for a preliminary injunction because CCP failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits. The court concluded that CCP's First Amendment facial challenge to the Attorney General's disclosure requirement fails exacting scrutiny where CCP has not shown any "actual burden" on its, or its supporters', freedom of association. In this case, CCP did not claim and produced no evidence to suggest that their significant donors would experience threats, harassment, or other potential chilling conduct as a result of the Attorney General's disclosure requirement. The regulation has a "plainly legitimate sweep" where CCP concedes that the Attorney General has a compelling interest in enforcing the laws of California and CCP does not contest the Attorney General's power to require disclosure of significant donor information as a part of her general subpoena power. Further, the disclosure requirement bears a substantial relation to a sufficiently important government interest. Therefore, CCP's First Amendment facial challenge to the disclosure requirement fails exacting scrutiny. Finally, the court concluded that federal tax law, 26 U.S.C. 6104, does not preempt the requirement.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction in an action brought by the Center for Competitive Politics under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking to enjoin the California Attorney General from requiring it to disclose the names and contributions of the Center’s “significant donors” on Internal Revenue Form 990 Schedule B, which the Center must file with the state in order to maintain its registered status with the state’s Registry of Charitable Trusts. The panel first rejected the Center’s contention that the disclosure requirement was, in and of itself, injurious to the Center and its supporters’ exercise of their First Amendment rights to freedom of association. The panel held that the chilling risk inherent in compelled disclosure triggered exacting scrutiny. Under the exacting scrutiny’s balancing test, the strength of the governmental interest must reflect the seriousness of the actual burden on First Amendment right. The panel held that the Center had not shown any “actual burden” to itself or to its supporters. The panel determined that the Center did not claim or produce evidence to suggest that its significant donors would experience threats, harassment, or other potentially chilling conduct as a result of the Attorney General’s disclosure requirement. On the other side of the scale, the panel held that the Attorney General has a compelling interest in enforcing the laws of California and CTR. FOR COMPETITIVE POLITICS V. HARRIS 3 that the disclosure requirement bore a “substantial relation” to the “sufficiently important” government interest of law enforcement. The panel also rejected the Center’s contention that the disclosure requirement was preempted because Congress intended to protect the privacy of the donor information of non-profit organizations from all public disclosure when it added 26 U.S.C. § 6104, part of the Pension Protection Act of 2006. The panel held that Section 6104 does not so clearly manifest the purpose of Congress that the panel could infer from it that Congress intended to bar state attorneys general from requesting the information contained in Form 990, Schedule B.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.