A majority of the court seems to think that public criticism of high-dollar donors is the real threat to the First Amendment.

“Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in 2010, “without which democracy is doomed.” Scalia would be aghast by arguments on display at the Supreme Court on Monday in American for Prosperity v. Bonta.

The case constitutes a challenge to a California disclosure law that requires tax-exempt charities to disclose their high-dollar donors to the state attorney general. It does not involve censorship or compelled expression; no one is being silenced or forced to speak against their will. It does not even involve public disclosure; the attorney general is obligated to keep the information confidential. The only alleged infringement on the First Amendment is the possibility that an inadvertent leak by the California attorney general will reveal donors’ names, and they will face accountability for their donations. And yet Monday’s arguments revealed that a clear majority of the Supreme Court is plainly prepared to either block the law’s application to the plaintiffs or strike it down altogether. If Scalia was correct in 2010, then this case is an ominous sign for a democracy that’s already under stress.