A ruling out of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals offers a reminder of the strength of constitutional protections for nonprofit donor privacy. On October 20, the court ruled against a motion to compel the nonprofit organization Media Matters to provide a list of its donors as part of an ongoing lawsuit from the social media company X.  

From the opinion:

X Corp. alleges that Media Matters “knowingly and maliciously” manipulated images to “portray X Corp. as a social media platform dominated by neo-Nazism and anti-Semitism,” which “alienate[d] major advertisers, publishers, and users from X.” In discovery, X Corp. requested that Media Matters produce the identity of donors, their addresses, and its communications with them.

Citing First Amendment concerns and the Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, Media Matters opposed X’s request. On appeal to the Fifth Circuit, the court ruled:

Starting with Request for Production 17, the broadest request, X Corp. demanded Documents sufficient to show the identity of all Your donors or any others who provide financial support of any kind, their residence, the time and place of their donation or provision of financial support, and the amount of their donations or other financial support. Request 17 is not “proportional to the needs of the case.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). X Corp. says that it needs this information to determine (1) how Media Matters has “availed [itself] of Texas,” (2) how it “funded [its] tortious conduct,” and (3) whether it is “profiting or seeking to improve [its] financial condition from its disparagement.” In its order compelling production, the district court said that this information would help X Corp. prove “willful and intentional . . . interference with [X Corp.’s] contract” and whether “false and disparaging information was published with malice.” We doubt that X Corp. needs the identity of Media Matters’s every donor, big or small, to advance its theories. Nor does it need the full residential addresses for any of those stated purposes. Conversely, Media Matters and its donors would bear a heavy burden if Media Matters had to release this information. It could enable others to harass or intimidate Media Matters or its donors. Indeed, X Corp.’s owner, Elon Musk, has said that X Corp. would “pursue not just [Media Matters] but anyone funding that organization. I want to be clear about that anyone funding that organization, will be, we will pursue them.”

Musk himself is both a vocal supporter of free speech and a former victim of privacy invasions. He was one of the individuals, along with former President Donald Trump, whose tax returns were stolen and leaked by ex-IRS contractor Charles Littlejohn in a politically motivated scheme. That crime was another reminder of how private tax information can be weaponized against Americans as punishment for their political speech and beliefs.

Musk is also a frequent target of censors around the globe due to X’s willingness to oppose “takedown requests” from governments. It’s a reputation he wears with pride. After X prevailed in a recent legal battle in Australia, Musk stated, “freedom of speech is worth fighting for.”

But sometimes, freedom of speech needs privacy. Without it, citizens can be harassed into silence through threats to their careers or even their safety. It’s a problem Musk has recognized and addressed at X. Under his ownership, the platform has adopted stronger policies against doxing to protect users from privacy invasions when expressing unpopular beliefs.

Demanding a list of Media Matters’s donors would expose that group’s supporters to threats as well, primarily the threat of retaliatory lawsuits. X may disagree vociferously with Media Matters’s viewpoints, but their members have a right to support them without being targeted by their opponents. Every American should have strong privacy protections for their right to support nonprofit causes regardless of their beliefs.

The same First Amendment liberties that Musk has fought and sacrificed for are at stake when nonprofits are asked to expose their members’ names and addresses. Thankfully, the Fifth Circuit recognized the danger here, and protected donor privacy from harm.