Nonprofit organizations depend on the trust of their donors. For some supporters, especially those contributing to organizations involved in public policy, advocacy, religion, or other sensitive issues, that trust includes confidence that their personal information will remain private.
A federal court case involving the Buckeye Institute is now testing how far that privacy protection extends.
In Buckeye Institute v. IRS, the Ohio-based nonprofit is challenging a federal requirement that certain tax-exempt organizations disclose the names and addresses of substantial contributors to the IRS on Form 990, Schedule B. The organization argues that collecting this information may discourage donors from supporting causes they care about and may interfere with the First Amendment right to freedom of association.
The IRS maintains that donor information helps administer the federal tax system and oversee organizations receiving tax-exempt status. The government also argues that the federal requirement differs from the state disclosure rule struck down by the Supreme Court in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta.
The Sixth Circuit heard oral arguments in the Buckeye case on April 29, 2026. As of July 24, 2026, the case remained listed among the circuit’s pending matters, meaning no final appellate ruling had yet been issued.
Here is what nonprofit leaders, board members, fundraisers, and advisors should understand about the case.
Why Nonprofits Report Donor Information to the IRS
Organizations recognized as tax-exempt under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) generally file an annual Form 990, Form 990-EZ, or Form 990-PF, depending on their size and classification.
Organizations that receive contributions meeting the applicable reporting thresholds may also need to complete Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors. Schedule B collects information about certain significant contributors, including identifying details and contribution amounts.
The specific filing rules depend on the organization’s classification and the amount or percentage contributed. Current IRS instructions also explain that some tax-exempt organizations are no longer required to report contributor names and addresses, while organizations such as Section 501(c)(3) charities and certain other filers remain subject to contributor-reporting requirements.
For most public charities, the contributor-identifying portion of Schedule B is generally protected from public disclosure. Different disclosure rules may apply to private foundations and certain political organizations.
Even when information is not released publicly, however, the Buckeye Institute argues that mandatory disclosure to the government can still discourage private association.
What Is the Buckeye Institute Case About?
The Buckeye Institute is an Ohio-based charitable research and educational organization focused on public policy.
In December 2022, it filed a lawsuit challenging the federal requirement under IRC Section 6033(b)(5) to provide substantial-contributor information to the IRS. The organization contends that requiring donor names and addresses as a routine condition of tax-exempt status violates the First Amendment.
The federal district court did not immediately resolve the constitutional question. Instead, it allowed the case to proceed and concluded that the disclosure requirement should be evaluated using a more demanding constitutional standard known as exacting scrutiny.
The federal government appealed the decision concerning that standard of review. The Sixth Circuit accepted the appeal and heard oral arguments in April 2026.
The immediate appellate question is therefore not necessarily whether the IRS requirement is ultimately constitutional. The court must first determine how closely the requirement should be examined.
Buckeye’s Argument for Donor Privacy
Buckeye’s position relies heavily on the Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta.
According to Buckeye, the freedom to associate with organizations, causes, and other individuals includes a corresponding right to keep those associations private. Compelled disclosure may create a chilling effect when donors fear harassment, retaliation, reputational harm, or unwanted public exposure.
Buckeye argues that donors may become less willing to contribute when their names, addresses, and giving information are entered into a federal database.
Its concerns include:
- Accidental or unauthorized disclosure of confidential information
- Possible harassment or retaliation based on political or policy-related giving
- Reduced willingness to support organizations involved in controversial issues
- The risk that collecting information broadly affects donors who are not suspected of wrongdoing
Buckeye also questions whether the IRS regularly uses Schedule B information for a specific enforcement purpose.
The organization argues that when donor information is genuinely needed during an audit or investigation, the IRS can request it directly through an Information Document Request or another examination procedure. From Buckeye’s perspective, collecting donor information from thousands of compliant organizations in advance is broader than necessary.
The IRS Argument for Continued Disclosure
The federal government argues that IRS donor reporting serves a different purpose from the California requirement rejected in Bonta.
California required charities to provide unredacted Schedule B information as part of the state’s charitable-solicitation registration process. The federal government, by contrast, collects donor information as part of administering tax-exempt status and federal charitable-contribution deductions.
The IRS argues that Section 501(c)(3) organizations and their donors receive important tax benefits:
- The charitable organization is generally exempt from federal income tax.
- Eligible donors may receive a federal income tax deduction for charitable contributions.
Because tax exemption is a benefit created by Congress, the government contends that Congress may impose reasonable reporting conditions on organizations that choose to seek or retain that status.
The government also maintains that contributor information may help the IRS:
- Identify inflated charitable-contribution deductions
- Detect disguised purchases, loans, or other transactions
- Evaluate possible private benefit or private inurement
- Monitor compliance with tax-exemption requirements
- Support examinations and enforcement activities
The IRS further argues that contributor information is generally protected by federal confidentiality rules and is not ordinarily available for public inspection for public charities. Federal law broadly provides that tax returns and return information are confidential unless disclosure is specifically authorized.
Why the Bonta Decision Matters
In Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, California required charities soliciting donations in the state to submit unredacted copies of Schedule B to the state attorney general.
California argued that collecting the information in advance helped investigate charitable fraud, self-dealing, and other misconduct.
The charities challenging the requirement argued that the blanket collection of donor information discouraged association and exposed supporters to possible harassment.
The Supreme Court held that California’s broad disclosure requirement violated the First Amendment. The Court applied exacting scrutiny and found that the requirement was not sufficiently tailored to the state’s enforcement interests.
A major concern was the gap between California’s stated purpose and how it actually used the information. The state rarely relied on Schedule B to begin investigations and could obtain donor information through an audit or subpoena when a specific need arose.
The Supreme Court also recognized that promises of confidentiality do not automatically eliminate a First Amendment burden. Disclosure to the government itself may discourage some donors, particularly when there is a risk that confidential information could be mishandled.
However, the decision did not expressly invalidate federal Schedule B reporting. The Court acknowledged that federal tax administration may involve interests different from state regulation of charitable solicitation.
That distinction is central to the Buckeye case.
Understanding the Levels of Constitutional Review
The outcome may depend heavily on which legal standard the court applies.
Strict Scrutiny
Strict scrutiny is generally the most demanding standard.
Under strict scrutiny, the government must demonstrate that a law or requirement serves a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The government must generally show that less restrictive alternatives would not adequately accomplish its objective.
Exacting Scrutiny
Exacting scrutiny requires a substantial relationship between the disclosure requirement and a sufficiently important governmental interest.
The government must also demonstrate that the requirement is appropriately tailored. It may not always have to use the least restrictive method, but a broad disclosure rule cannot substantially exceed what the government needs to accomplish its legitimate purpose.
This is the standard the Supreme Court applied in Bonta.
Rational-Basis Review
Rational-basis review is considerably more deferential to the government.
Under this standard, the requirement generally survives if it is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. The government does not need to prove that the rule is narrowly tailored in the same way required under exacting or strict scrutiny.
Buckeye argues that exacting scrutiny should apply because the rule burdens protected association.
The government argues that a more deferential standard is appropriate because the reporting obligation is connected to a voluntary federal tax benefit and serves tax-administration purposes.
What Could Happen Next?
The Sixth Circuit’s decision may address which constitutional standard applies to the IRS disclosure requirement.
If the court determines that exacting scrutiny applies, the case may return to the district court for a closer examination of questions such as:
- How often does the IRS use Schedule B information?
- What specific enforcement purposes does the information serve?
- Is routine collection necessary?
- Could the IRS obtain donor information only when an examination or investigation requires it?
- Are current confidentiality safeguards sufficient?
- Is the reporting requirement broader than necessary?
If the court applies rational-basis review, the federal government may have a much easier path. It may only need to show that collecting substantial-contributor information is reasonably connected to administering tax-exempt status and enforcing federal tax laws.
The decision could also be appealed further, especially if it creates disagreement among federal appellate courts or raises a significant constitutional question.
What Nonprofit Organizations Should Do Now
The pending case does not currently eliminate or suspend Schedule B filing requirements.
Nonprofits should continue following existing IRS instructions and should not omit required contributor information based solely on the Buckeye litigation.
Organizations should consider the following compliance steps:
Continue Filing Required Forms
Complete Form 990 and Schedule B based on the organization’s current classification, contribution amounts, and applicable reporting thresholds.
Protect Donor Information Internally
Limit access to donor names, addresses, contribution amounts, and tax records to employees, officers, board members, and advisors who need the information.
Review Public Inspection Copies
Make sure contributor-identifying information that is not legally subject to public disclosure is properly removed from the organization’s public inspection copy.
Strengthen Data-Security Practices
Use secure systems for donor records, encrypted file-sharing methods, and appropriate access controls. Schedule B and related donor documentation should not be stored or transmitted casually.
Explain Privacy Practices Clearly
Organizations may wish to explain to donors that certain information must be reported confidentially to the IRS but is generally not included in the public version of a public charity’s Form 990.
Monitor the Case
Nonprofit executives and advisors should watch for the Sixth Circuit’s decision and any subsequent IRS guidance, appeal, or change in reporting procedures.
Why the Case Matters Beyond Schedule B
The Buckeye case concerns more than one tax form.
It raises a broader question about how government oversight should be balanced with the privacy of individuals who financially support nonprofit organizations.
A decision favoring Buckeye could lead to closer scrutiny of federal donor-reporting requirements and may require the IRS to explain more precisely why it needs contributor-identifying information.
A decision favoring the government could reinforce Congress’s authority to impose reporting obligations on organizations receiving tax-exempt status, particularly when donor information is kept confidential and used for tax administration.
The decision may also influence future challenges involving donor databases, charitable registration, nonprofit investigations, and other government disclosure requirements.
Final Thoughts
The Supreme Court’s decision in Bonta strengthened donor privacy in the state charitable-solicitation context. The Buckeye Institute case now asks whether similar First Amendment protections apply when contributor information is collected by the federal government as part of tax-exempt organization reporting.
For now, the IRS requirements remain in effect. Nonprofits should continue filing accurate Form 990 returns and Schedule B disclosures while protecting confidential donor information from unauthorized access.
At the same time, nonprofit leaders should follow the case closely. The Sixth Circuit’s eventual ruling could clarify whether routine federal collection of donor identities is a reasonable tax-compliance measure or an overly broad burden on private association.
Because the litigation remains pending, organizations should consult qualified legal or tax counsel before making changes to their reporting practices.
