Read the full brief here.
https://ifs-site.mysitebuild.com/2014/04/14/ccp-v-harris-defendants-opposition-to-plaintiffs-motion-for-preliminary-injunction/ccp-v-harris-opposition-and-exhibits/
The California Attorney General has primary responsibility for the supervision and regulation of charitable organizations in California. State law, including the Supervision of Trustees and Fundraisers for Charitable Purposes Act, California Government Code sections 12580 et seq., vests the Attorney General with broad authority to carry out these enforcement responsibilities, including the power to require charitable organizations to furnish information and reports. Plaintiff takes issue with one such requirement: that it annually submit to the Attorney General a complete copy of its IRS Form 990, Schedule B, which lists the names and addresses of its major contributors. The Attorney General maintains this information in the Registry of Charitable Trusts, where it is kept confidential and is used exclusively for law enforcement purposes.
Although this reporting requirement is both an ordinary exercise of the State’s police power and a critical enforcement tool, plaintiff insists that it violates its constitutional rights.
Specifically, plaintiff alleges that the Attorney General’s demand for the same Schedule B on file with the IRS violates both the Supremacy Clause and its First Amendment right to freedom of association, and has moved to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of that demand.
The Attorney General respectfully submits that this Court should deny the motion because plaintiff has not met the standard for issuance of a preliminary injunction: it has not demonstrated either a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims or that it will be injured if an injunction does not issue. There is no evidence that Congress intended to preempt state reporting requirements nor is there any conflict between the relevant federal and state laws.
Similarly, plaintiff has offered no evidence that the disclosure of donor information to a confidential state registry would have any effect on, let alone infringe, its associational rights.
Moreover, even if plaintiffs could establish a prima facie case of infringement, the challenged requirement is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest and would therefore be constitutional. Thus, plaintiff cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits of either of its claims for relief. Plaintiff’s motion is also unsubstantiated by any evidence of injury that it would suffer in the absence of injunctive relief.
