On March 26, 2026, the U.S. Judicial Conference announced it is withdrawing a disastrous donor disclosure rule for those who file amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs. The relevant committees that oversee the rule change wish for more time for reconsideration of the privacy implications of any rule change. This is a matter NTUF has been tracking closely and arguing for caution before the courts change the rules requiring extensive donor disclosure. The new expanded donor disclosure rules had been set to take effect December 1 of this year, though they were curtailed to apply only to donors who earmark their funds for amicus work.
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 29 regulates how organizations file amicus curiae briefs in federal court. Currently, organizations filing briefs in federal court must state their identity, their interest in the case, and certify whether any party or other person paid for the creation of the amicus brief. The proposed changes would instead demand donor disclosure for those who gave as little as $100 to the amicus organization. This intrusion into donor privacy would deter filings, chill speech, and violate the First Amendment.
In December 2024, NTUF’s Taxpayer Defense Center teamed up with People United for Privacy Foundation to file comments against dangerous proposed amendments to Rule 29. To protect the freedom to associate, the Supreme Court requires disclosure laws to survive “exacting scrutiny,” which requires the government to show such disclosure is in substantial relation to a sufficiently important government interest and is narrowly tailored. The proposed changes to Rule 29 failed this strict test.
In our February 2025 testimony at the hearing on the matter, we emphasized the importance of amicus briefs in tax law, and argued that donor privacy has been protected by exacting scrutiny for decades. The proposed disclosure requirements failed to meet this standard and do not provide a substantial government interest. The proposed amendments are not properly tailored and there are no alternative channels for amicus arguments. We also cautioned against using campaign finance cases—those about directly giving to political candidates—as justification for requiring disclosure for those talking about legal issues directly to courts.
It appears that, in early March 2026, Judge Allison Eid (10th Circuit Judge and Chair of the Conference’s Appellate Rules Committee) and Judge James C. Dever III (District Court Judge in Eastern North Carolina and Chair of the Committee on Rules and Practice) wrote a joint letter to the United States Supreme Court. (Letter available here, Tab 5B of the PDF). That letter echoed many of NTUF and PUFP’s concerns about donor privacy: the judges worried that the new rules “could interfere with the privacy of those organizations and of their members, who may be chilled from contributing to their organization’s amicus briefs if they were required to announce their membership to the public.” Due to those concerts, the Judicial Conference wished to withdraw those parts of the rule changes portfolio for more consideration.
The proposed rule changes are not fully “dead,” just mostly dead. The judges asked for more time for more consideration. But the withdrawal does delay the implementation of the rule changes and gives advocates for donor privacy, such as NTUF, another chance to address the committee on the constitutional concerns of the proposed rule changes.