U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) has long sought to discredit and defang the conservative legal movement by any means necessary. One of his most dangerous strategies is to demand that nonprofits expose the names and addresses of their supporters in the text of legal briefs filed in federal court. Once in place, this policy would allow Whitehouse (and his progressive allies in media and politics) to harass and intimidate individuals who support conservative legal causes. The end goal is simple: Starve the right of the resources it needs to compete in the marketplace of ideas by making life hell for donors.

Fortunately, after an outcry from nonprofits, including People United for Privacy Foundation (PUFPF), the federal judiciary sent a clear message that it won’t be bullied into becoming a pawn in Whitehouse’s schemes. After previously rejecting a Whitehouse-led proposal to force broad donor disclosure on groups that file even one amicus brief in federal court, a panel of judges has now voted to advance a competing proposal that instead makes modest tweaks to the existing rules.

Under the new rule, recently approved by the U.S. Judicial Conference’s Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, amicus filers would only be required to name donors who earmarked more than $100 for the preparation of the brief, if that person or entity had been a member of the organization filing it for less than 12 months. The rule will now advance to the Judicial Conference for review and, if approved, proceed to the U.S. Supreme Court for final approval, barring an act of Congress to overturn it. By focusing on earmarked donations and excluding an organization’s general members, the rule is much less invasive than Whitehouse intended. That’s a win for privacy, freedom of association, and judicial impartiality.

Donor disclosure requirements are common in campaign finance law, where the Supreme Court has ruled that voters may benefit from knowing the major sources of financial support for candidates. But they are rare and legally disfavored for other forms of speech and advocacy. Unlike voters, judges are expected to be impartial towards the groups and individuals that appear before them. Donor disclosure therefore risks biasing judicial proceedings and exposing Americans to harassment for their beliefs.

In comments to the Judicial Conference from March 2023 on its initial proposal, People United for Privacy Foundation explained this concern:

“In sharp contrast to the electoral context, the very notion that judges could decide matters on the basis of such considerations is wholly antithetical to our legal system. It is axiomatic in American law that judges are to decide matters based solely on the law and the facts of the case. Indeed, ‘Lady Justice’ is often depicted wearing a blindfold because judges are generally supposed to be indifferent to the identities of those who appear before them.”

The revised rule hews much closer to that traditional American ideal than Whitehouse’s radical vision. Yet, it is still not a total victory. As PUFPF and National Taxpayers Union Foundation jointly explained in response to a modified proposal in December 2024, even modest additional disclosure requirements are unnecessary and chill the First Amendment right to freedom of association. Courts simply do not need any new donor information from amicus filers to determine whether the facts and arguments in briefs are valid. The rule’s $100 threshold will likely capture many small donations that do not hold sway over a nonprofit’s activities.

Moreover, Whitehouse continues to push his amicus disclosure demands in legislation, initially via the “AMICUS Act” and now through the “Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act of 2025.” The latter was recently re-introduced as S. 1814 and H.R. 3513 but is unlikely to be considered, at least for now, in the Republican-controlled Congress.

In the big picture, however, the new rule is a much-needed repudiation of Senator Whitehouse’s perverse campaign to politicize the courts and turn nonprofit donors into targets for harassment. The panel’s decision preserves a vital measure of privacy for Americans who wish to support legal causes they believe in without fear of retaliation. And it affirms the fundamental principle that courts should be fora where arguments stand on their merits, not where political actors can weaponize disclosure to punish dissent.