The Anonymity Shield: A Chronology (1886–2024)

• Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886): The original San Francisco victory establishing that laws administered with an "evil eye and an unequal hand" violate Equal Protection.
• West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943): Establishing that the government may not force citizens to "confess by word or act" a government-prescribed message.
• NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958): Protecting group association anonymity and refuting the myth that anonymity is only for lone individuals.
• Bates v. City of Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516 (1960): Ruling that compulsory disclosure of association is an unconstitutional "handicap" to free speech.
• Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960): Striking down a Los Angeles disclaimer ordinance as a categorical ban on anonymous speech.
• Canon v. Justice Court, 61 Cal. 2d 446 (1964): Establishing anonymity as an "integral part" of the California constitutional guarantee.
• Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966): Affirming the Right to Silence as a constitutional necessity to prevent government coercion.
• Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974): Protecting editorial discretion to exclude state-mandated content from a speaker's platform.
• Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977): Affirming that the state cannot force a citizen to serve as a "mobile billboard" for its messages.
• Ghafari v. Municipal Court, 87 Cal. App. 3d 255 (1978): A San Francisco victory recognizing anonymity as a vital shield from reprisal for organized dissidents.
• People v. Drake, 97 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 32 (1979): Striking down flat prohibitions of anonymous political material under the California Constitution.
• Schuster v. Municipal Court, 109 Cal. App. 3d 887 (1980): Controlling Precedent holding that Article I, Section 2 provides superior protection for anonymous sentiments.
• Rosen v. Port of Portland, 641 F.2d 1243 (9th Cir. 1981): Ninth Circuit rejection of identification requirements as a chilling prior restraint on speech.
• Riley v. National Federation of the Blind of N.C., 487 U.S. 781 (1988): Applying Strict Scrutiny to strike down compelled disclaimers that "clutter" a speaker's message.
• McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995): Affirming anonymous speech as a protected political and editorial choice.
• Stewart v. Taylor, 953 F. Supp. 1047 (S.D. Ind. 1997): Robbin Stewart's Case. Establishing that the state’s informational interest is insufficient to justify a categorical ban on anonymity.
• Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (1999): Invalidating ID-badge requirements as unconstitutional compelled identification.
• Griset v. Fair Political Practices Commission, 25 Cal. 4th 688 (2001), rev'g on other grounds 69 Cal. App. 4th 818 (1999): Procedural resolution of the substantive finding that mass-mailing disclaimers are unconstitutional.
• Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of N.Y., Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002): Reaffirming anonymity rights for organized groups, not just solitary speakers.
• Majors v. Abell, 361 F.3d 349 (7th Cir. 2004) (Easterbrook, J., Dubitante): Admonishing that such laws "forbidden all spontaneous political speech" and fail established constitutional principles.
• ACLU of Nevada v. Heller, 378 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2004): Ninth Circuit ruling that disclaimers are not the least restrictive means of achieving transparency.
• Berger v. City of Seattle, 569 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2009): The "Magic Mike" case rejecting compelled identification (badges) in public forums.
• Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31, 585 U.S. 878 (2018): Reaffirming the right not to be forced to subsidize or broadcast objectionable messages.
• NIFLA v. Becerra, 585 U.S. 755 (2018): Striking down state-mandated disclaimers as unconstitutional compelled content.
• 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570 (2023): Reaffirming that the government may not coerce an individual's conscience or speech.
• X Corp. v. Bonta [consolidated with Kohl-Abbas v. Bonta], 110 F.4th 1133 (9th Cir. 2024): The Ninth Circuit striking down compelled "transparency" reports that intrude on editorial discretion and burden the right to exclude government-mandated content.