The U.S. Supreme Court held oral arguments Monday in Thomas More Law Center v. Bonta and Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, cases that ask whether Americans remain free to support nonprofit organizations and their causes without fear of harassment or threats. Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel and vice president of appellate advocacy John Bursch represents the Michigan-based nonprofit in the Thomas More case….
Thomas More Law Center is a nonprofit organization based in Michigan that defends and promotes religious freedom, moral and family values, and the sanctity of human life. Roughly 5% of its donors are California residents, and it has operated as a charity in good standing with California’s attorney general for many years. Beginning in March 2012, the office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta began to harass the law center, demanding the names and addresses of its major donors.
A trial showed that the attorney general’s office had no compelling need for that confidential information and leaked it like a sieve. By storing confidential donor information on the internet, the office created a perfect target for hackers, where the data could be easily discovered.
During Monday’s oral argument, many of the justices’ questions were sympathetic to the law center’s and the foundation’s positions:
- Chief Justice John Roberts questioned how requiring thousands of charities to obtain exemptions from the donor-disclosure requirement would work.
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh recognized that groups across the political spectrum—including the American Civil Liberties Union, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and Human Rights Campaign—are concerned that California’s disclosure rule will chill free speech and association.
- Justice Clarence Thomas noted that the government used confidential census data to locate Japanese citizens for internment during World War II and worried about today’s toxic climate, where people are loosely labeled “racist” or “white supremacist.”
- Justice Samuel Alito pointed out that the district court found California’s security lapses “shocking,” and Justice Sonia Sotomayor added that reasonable donors might no longer have faith in California.
- Justice Neil Gorsuch expressed concern that ruling for California could allow the government to mandate the disclosure of other personal information, like citizens’ Christmas card lists or dating history….
Parties across the ideological spectrum—including 22 attorneys general, the ACLU, NAACP, HRC, ChinaAid, and others— filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of the Thomas More Law Center.
The above comes from an April 26 release sent by Alliance Defending Freedom.
Interesting alliance, but they all get the point. Gotta love Justice Thomas for seeing where some Lefties would go with dopey laws like this one.
The tyrannical left wants to dox anyone not in line with their group think. You won’t deny it when they show up at your house with a mob of goons because they find out you believe the Catholic teaching that marriage is between one man and one woman. Or that you believe there are only two genders. Or that you didn’t get the covid vaccine. Maybe you’ll just get fired, or not hired in the first place. These brownshirts must be defeated.
Dear Lies: There is definitely an element of the left that wants to doxx people who don’t agree with them. I’ve actually had it attempted against me, but a neighbor of mine was so doxxed that her job and safety were at stake and she ended up moving back to her home country of UK. But there is equally an element of the right that wants to doxx people who don’t agree with them either.
I would just note, that this might be the first time that the Thomas More group is agreeing with the gay lobby group Human Rights Campaign on any issue at all.
It would be nice if we could create more of these collaborations going forward. It would do both sides a lot of good.
YFC,
I completely agree that it would be quite nice if activists groups on both sides of the aisle collaborated more often. This has already been happening, to some degree, already. Let’s hope that this continues and accelerates for the sake of the Republic and the Rights that it protects.
I also agree that there are undemocratic, threatening people on both the Left and the Right. Currently, though, this danger comes predominately from the Left.
It was quite common in the eighties. Then Ratzinger became more powerful as St John Paul’s health declined, then elected pope and the hierarchy decided that Church agencies ought to have nothing to do with organizations that didn’t adhere to doctrine on all issues, not just the issues both people agreed upon. It was a sad but important ratcheting up of the divisiveness we see all around us today.
No YFC, divisiveness comes from those committed to sin in word or deed and insisting the rest of us accept it, on the grounds of tolerance.
YFC,
Where you replying to me or to someone else? Your comments didn’t quite seemed linked to mine.
Regardless, I have to disagree with your history about Ratzinger. Ratzinger also doesn’t have a divisive personality.
You cannot collaborate with the evil Left….ever.
“. But there is equally an element of the right that wants to doxx people who don’t agree with them either.”….BS since the the Left is the dominant force on social media this statement is utter nonsense
The public does not have a right to know how much money you give to your church, favorite religious community or ministry; or any private charities.
Only totalitarian regimes want to pressure, threaten and punish those who give away their own money at their own volition to whoever they deem worthy of support.
Your comment about totalitarian regimes is well noted. It gives tremendous insight into the California Democrat mindset.
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
The road to Hell is also paved with hate.
Well, there is an argument to be made that the public does have a right to know, in so far as those donations take away tax revenue. The broad notion is that charitable organizations work with government to promote the common good. So government and the people they govern have a certain right to inquire about how public money gets channelled into efforts ostensibly set up for the common good, but outside of the control of voters. The alternative is that instead of rubber stamping the charitable charters of non-profits, which is the mechanism for making donations deductible, they could take a more aggressive role in determining whether or not an organization actually promotes the common good, and hence the deductability of donations, and i can assure you that nobody on either side wants that.
If the IRS has approved the 501(c)3 status of a non-profit, that’s all that should be required. The IRS determines that such a non-profit promotes the common good. They don’t need to, should not, release the names and addresses of donors so that they can be harassed, threatened and possibly even attacked. The IRS does the vetting, not a mob. And, the Church should not reveal to the government who attends. Our Church has a history of not telling authorities who attends, whether those authorities are Roman, Soviet, Chinese or Californian.
And, related, not many envisioned the current level of taxation. We didn’t always have an income tax and (once) when proposed, it was argued for by stating that the federal government would never need (or tax) more than two percent of the income of Americans. For most of the last two millennia, in Western Civilization at least, it seems monarchs and other lords did not tax at a rate higher than 10 percent because that was the amount of the tithe, the tenth given to God. And, monarchs did not want to appear to be placing themselves above God.
If families are permitted to keep more of their money, they will provide for their children, rather than giving money and control over their children’s care and education to the government. One example in the news this week: should all Americans, including those who make sacrifices to care for their own children, be required to pay for “free” “universal” preschool for others’ children?
There once was a law that required that driving permits, with name and address,
be posted in your auto, and clearly readable from outside.
Of course, the bad guys found it quite convenient to just read such a permit,
as it allowed them to know the exact location of a victim.
After some years, as the number of such crimes increased, the law was changed.
Time for these donation disclosure laws to be ended also.
Homosexual lobbies are usually on the wrong side of issues and The Thomas More Law Center fights against them.