1. My take on this morning big SCOTUS argument: It’s almost certain that Americans for Prosperity Foundation and Thomas More Law Center will win this case, but the devil will be in the details. https://www.cato.org/blog/supreme-court-poised-reinforce-freedom-association-against-california-intrusion

2. Will splintered Court issue a narrow ruling that essentially forces every charity soliciting donations in CA (including @CatoInstitute) to go to court to protect its donor lists, or will the justices uphold the broad associational freedom and privacy that the 1st Am protects?

3. It’s not clear from argument, but I’m optimistic. AFPF & Thomas More have shown on the record the justified concerns they have for the harms that could befall their donors if they were compelled to disclose them, but those very real harms aren’t the most important part...

4. Indeed, AFPF & T. More should win this case even if there were no demonstrated threats against donors. The case is important because Const. protects private, anonymous association, which can be overcome only if govt shows an interest that is both compelling/narrowly tailored..

5. Justices Alito, Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Thomas each expressed concern over California’s claim of a sweeping, prophylactic power to collect sensitive personal information, and even Justice Sotomayor queried the state’s lawyer about donors’ reasonable fear of hacking.

6. Desire to remain anonymous in pol activities is time-honored practice. That’s why AFPF drew support from across spectrum + apolitical charities: ACLU, ADF, AUL, Animal LDF, Becket, Cato, CAIR, HRC, IJ, NAACP, NARAL-NC, PETA, YAF, YAL, SPLC, ZOA, relig groups, universities...

7/7 Even without any threats, anonymity can be used to give arguments more attention than the identity of their author or funder. It’s still the government’s job to demonstrate when and why anonymous association should be squashed. Background & Cato brief: https://www.cato.org/legal-briefs/americans-prosperity-foundation-v-becerra-0