(Cincinnati, Ohio)—The privacy of the names and information of donors to nonprofit organizations is protected by the First Amendment. When the government compels organizations to disclose donor information, it often creates a chilling effect causing some donors to stop donating for fear that they will be retaliated against by people who oppose the organization’s positions—particularly on issues of political or cultural importance and particularly in today’s political and cultural environment.
Because of the important First Amendment rights of donors to privately donate to organizations they support, the Liberty Justice Center filed an amicus brief in Buckeye v. Internal Revenue Service urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to reinforce constitutional limits on compelled disclosure of private donor information, which ultimately can create a chilling effect on donors.
In 2013 the Buckeye Institute publicly opposed Medicaid expansion in Ohio, urging the governor and General Assembly to reject federal expansions. Shortly thereafter, the IRS audited the Institute, leading many of its donors to legitimately fear retaliation if their identities were known to the government. This led some to stop giving and others to donate anonymously, forgoing receipts and tax deductibility.
In December 2022, the Buckeye Institute filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, contending that federal law requiring certain 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organizations to disclosure the identities of certain donors is not substantially related to a sufficiently important government interest and that less-intrusive, narrowly tailored alternatives exist.
On November 9, 2023, the district court denied the IRS’s motion to dismiss, and denied both sides’ summary judgment motions, finding that Buckeye has standing, and ordered a trial. On March 14, 2025, the Sixth Circuit granted the government’s request for an interlocutory appeal.
The Liberty Justice Center’s brief in Buckeye v. IRS argues that the First Amendment protects people who join and support groups and that Supreme Court precedent shows that forcing groups to reveal their members or supporters can chill those donors from exercising their free speech right to support those organizations. Evidence shows the very real threat of retaliation, both in the form of physical harm and the somewhat recent phenomena of cancel culture. The brief emphasizes examples of workplace retaliation in the form of termination for both celebrities and everyday civilians, describing the benefit of “financial cushion” for those of more notable status, but “ordinary people . . . are far more at the mercy of the outrage mob.”
Courts should start with a presumption of privacy in association and put the burden on the government to prove it truly needs donor names and is using the least speech-restrictive method.
“The First Amendment protects the right to associate with who you want and that includes donating money to organizations whose causes you support without being forced to disclose that information to the government or the public,” said Reilly Stephens, senior counsel and director of amicus practice at the Liberty Justice Center. “The Supreme Court recently recognized in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta that California could not require organizations to disclose donors using the same IRS form at issue here. For the same reason, the federal government cannot constitutionally require organizations to disclose their donors to the IRS.”
The Liberty Justice Center’s brief asks the appeals court to protect donor privacy and to uphold the lower court’s decision to keep the case alive to protect the First Amendment rights of the Buckeye Institute’s supporters and donors.