Supreme Court

New York Times: Supreme Court Backs Donor Privacy for California Charities

By Adam Liptak

The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that California may not require charities soliciting contributions in the state to report the identities of their major donors.

The vote was 6 to 3, with the court’s three liberal members in dissent.

The requirement was challenged by Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a group affiliated with the Koch family, and the Thomas More Law Center, a conservative Christian public-interest law firm. They said it violated the First Amendment’s protection of the freedom of association by subjecting donors to possible harassment.

The disputed measure requires charities to file with the state a copy of an Internal Revenue Service form that identifies major donors. Under federal law, the I.R.S. must keep the form confidential. California also promised to keep the forms secret, but it has not always done so.

Election Law Blog: Breaking and Analysis: Supreme Court on 6-3 Vote in AFP Case Severely Undermines Case for Constitutionality of Campaign Finance Disclosure Laws

By Rick Hasen

In a 6-3 opinion, the Supreme Court has stuck down on a facial challenge California’s law requiring disclosure of donor information to CA officials for law enforcement purposes. But the case has major implications for campaign finance disclosure rules.

Justice Sotomayor in dissent says “Today’s analysis marks reporting and disclosure requirements with a bull’s-eye” and she’s exactly right. Chief Justice Roberts for the Court does the exact switcheroo on what “exacting scrutiny” means as he did in McCutcheon in the contributions context.

More later, but the key point is that it will be much harder to sustain campaign finance disclosure laws going forward.

Cato: State Bars Can’t Force Lawyers to Fund Political Speech

By Thomas A. Berry and Stacy Hanson

.Daniel Crowe and Lawrence Peterson are lawyers in Oregon who are compelled to pay dues to the state bar association if they wish to practice law in the state…

The Oregon State Bar Association is very politically active…

Crowe and Peterson are forced to partially fund the bar association’s political activities through their bar dues. Given the choice, they would not have voluntarily paid for such activities because they disagree with many of the bar’s positions. So they sued the Oregon State Bar to be released from the compelled‐​membership and compelled‐​dues requirements…

Now on petition to the Supreme Court, Crowe and Peterson ask the Court to rectify the obvious inconsistencies between Janus and Keller and hold that compelled‐​dues bar associations are as unconstitutional as compelled‐​dues public‐​sector unions. Cato has joined the Pacific Legal Foundation and the Atlantic Legal Foundation on an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to take the case.

The Courts

Washington Post: Federal judge blocks Florida law that would penalize social media companies

By Cat Zakrzewski

A federal judge on Wednesday blocked a Florida law that would penalize social media companies for blocking a politician’s posts, a blow to conservatives’ efforts to respond to Facebook and other websites’ suspension of former president Donald Trump.

The law was due to go into effect Thursday, but in issuing a preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle of the Northern District of Florida suggested that the law would be found unconstitutional.

“The plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their claim that these statutes violate the First Amendment,” Hinkle wrote. “There is nothing that could be severed and survive.”

The law laid out fines for tech companies that suspended political candidates in the run-up to an election…

The judge wrote a blistering criticism of the Florida law, saying that it “compels providers to host speech that violates their standards.”

“Like prior First Amendment restrictions, this is an instance of burning the house to roast a pig,” he wrote.

Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Assignments Aimed at “Requiring a Statement” of Ideological Belief from Students May Violate First Amendment

By Eugene Volokh

The case is Oliver v. Arnold, decided yesterday by the Fifth Circuit, in an opinion by Judge James L. Dennis joined by Judges Jack Weiner. I expect the opinion will be an important precedent in much of the litigation about compelled “diversity, equity, and inclusion” assignments in public schools. The fundamental precedent on which the case relies, W. Va. State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette (1943), broadly forbade “compulsion of students to declare a belief,”and condemned all attempts “to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country.” Though the case involved a compelled flag salute and pledge of allegiance, its rationale went well beyond the particular patriotic expressions that were being compelled.

The key question will be where the line is drawn between (1) commonplace and presumably constitutional assignments aimed at encouraging students to believe the particular facts and modes of analysis being taught (whether in biology class, economics class, history class, or what have you), and requiring them to show that they’ve learned the material, and (2) forbidden assignments created “with the impermissible motive of requiring a statement of patriotism [or other ideological belief] from … students.” Such a line can, I think, be drawn, but it will take more litigation to establish it.

Courthouse News: Twitter

The Ninth Circuit denied Twitter’s motion for an injunction pending appeal after a district judge dismissed its retaliation suit against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton over his issuance of a civil investigative demand seeking documents tied to the social media company’s moderation policies. The circuit court found that no action has been taken to enforce the demand and Paxton lacks authority to sanction Twitter for failure to comply with the demand without a separate enforcement action. 

SEC

Bloomberg Law: SEC ‘Mission Creep’ on Climate Ups Republican Lawsuit Threats

By Andrew Ramonas

Republicans and business interests are laying the groundwork for litigation against the SEC over any new mandates for companies to report climate risks and make other environmental, social, and governance disclosures…

The SEC is considering mandatory disclosures on greenhouse gas emissions, climate risks, and commitments to combat climate change. The agency would allow “mission creep” by requiring climate disclosures and other ESG reporting that have the potential to violate companies’ First Amendment rights, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey has told the commission.

The States

WTNH: Parents can now use campaign funds for childcare when running for office in Connecticut

By Jodi Latina

Connecticut has now become the 13th state in the nation to give parents who want to run for state elected office more access to a seat at the table by allowing campaign funds to pay for childcare…

Governor Ned Lamont signed the law on Tuesday.