Overlooked a bit in the excitement--we are excited here, aren't we--over the AZ election law victory, CJ Roberts wrote the opinion in a major case that pretty unceremoniously slapped down the Left's totalitarian efforts to defund conservatives through rank intimidation.
Some Roberts quotes:
California’s disclosure requirement is facially invalid because it burdens donors’ First Amendment rights and is not narrowly tailored to an important government interest.
We are left to conclude that the [CA] Attorney General’s disclosure requirement imposes a widespread burden on donors’ associational rights. And this burden cannot be justified on the ground that the regime is narrowly tailored to investigating charitable wrongdoing, or that the State’s interest in administrative convenience is sufficiently important.
The gravity of the privacy concerns in this context is further underscored by the filing of hundreds of organizations as amici curiae in support of the petitioners. Far from representing uniquely sensitive causes, these organizations span the ideological spectrum, and indeed the full range of human endeavors.
The deterrent effect feared by these organizations is real and pervasive.
In other words, the justices do follow the news. They've taken note of the Left's totalitarian trend, the efforts to suppress all dissent.
The Federalist has an article on the case:
JULY 1, 2021 By Audrey Unverferth
On Thursday, the Supreme Court held that California cannot force nonprofits to disclose the names of their donors. By rendering California’s donor policy unconstitutional, Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta reaffirms Americans’ right to freely associate.
The article quotes Carrie Severino's Twitter analysis, which I'm reproducing below in unrolled form:
Today's ruling in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta is a huge victory for anonymous speech and donor privacy, which have played an essential role in our nation’s history from its inception. /1
The decision reaffirms the Court's landmark decision in NAACP v. Alabama (1958), which held that the “freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of . . . freedom of speech." /2
The case is a strong rebuke of states like California, whose forced disclosure laws are now facially invalid. A major victory for those—on both the right and the left—who sought protection from abusive governments that would bully or intimidate them for their views. /3
Today’s decision was supported by a broad coalition of interest groups who filed friend of the court briefs. These groups cover the ideological spectrum. The Court observed, "The deterrent effect feared by these organizations is real and pervasive." /4
As the ACLU, NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the Human Rights Campaign noted in a co-authored brief, freedom of association is “fundamental to our democracy, and has long been protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments" /5
As the Chief Justice noted in his majority opinion, "the [district] court found that the petitioners had suffered from threats and harassment in the past, and that donors were likely to face similar retaliation in the future if their affiliations became publicly known." /6
Finally, it's worth noting that both Xavier Becerra and Kamala Harris helped launch California's assault against the First Amendment.
A good reminder that Joe Biden promised moderation, but has delivered extremism. /7