The Buckeye Institute v. Internal Revenue Service
In The Buckeye Institute v. Internal Revenue Service, The Buckeye Institute, a nonprofit policy organization based in Ohio, challenged a federal tax law that requires most 501(c)(3) charities to disclose the names and addresses of their major donors to the IRS each year. Buckeye argues that requiring an organization to disclose this detailed list of supporters to the federal government burdens the First Amendment rights of donors and the organization itself, as it may chill free speech and freedom of association. The case is currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Buckeye also points to real-world harms that can result from mandatory donor disclosure, concerns that resonate strongly with organizations like ours. When Buckeye publicly opposed Medicaid expansion in Ohio, the organization was audited by the IRS soon afterward, creating fear among supporters that government scrutiny or retaliation could follow their donations. Some donors stopped giving, while others chose to give anonymously without claiming tax benefits, demonstrating how disclosure rules can chill participation in civic life.
Donor privacy is not only a First Amendment concern but also a human rights issue: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes the right to privacy and freedom of association, both of which are threatened when governments collect sensitive information about individuals’ beliefs and affiliations without clear necessity. These risks are heightened by past accidental disclosures of taxpayer data and by the IRS’s own acknowledgment that it does not need detailed donor identities to carry out its core enforcement responsibilities.
Buckeye’s case raises important constitutional questions. Woodhull joined dozens of nonprofit organizations and advocacy groups that filed amicus (“friend of the court”) briefs in support of Buckeye. These briefs contend that compelled donor disclosure undermines the freedom to associate privately and discourages individuals from supporting causes they believe in. They emphasize that donor privacy is a long-recognized First Amendment liberty, and that requiring disclosure of donors’ identities can lead to social pressure, harassment, or retaliation against those donors.
We supported Buckeye’s position because they see a broader threat in compelled disclosure. For organizations that engage in issue advocacy, public education, or controversial policy work, donor privacy is essential for sustaining their missions. Requiring disclosure of supporters’ names, even only to the government, can chill participation in civic life, especially for individuals who fear public exposure of their beliefs or affiliations.