A federal District Court in Virginia has issued a temporary injunction enjoining the enforcement of constitutionally questionable questions asked by the state Attorney General in an investigation for violation of the state’s charitable solicitation registration law. It has found that the charity is likely to prevail on its claim that demanding donor lists in a Civil Investigative Demand (”CID”) likely violates the right of free association guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Virginia Attorney General Jason S. Miyares issued the CID in October 2023 to the AJP Educational Foundation (“AMP”), d/b/a/American Muslims for Palestine, an organization “dedicated to advancing the movement for justice in Palestine.” He said he was seeking to determine whether AJP had provided support for terrorist organizations.
The Attorney General (who lost a campaign for re-election in the 2025 elections) asked a series of questions based on registration requirements spelled out in the state registration statute and requested 31 categories of documents, including all meeting minutes and agendas for all board or committee meetings, identification of all employees, documents relating to any financial account and “all donor lists, including list-serves and email groups.”
After the parties disputed the terms of the CID in state court and AMP was found in contempt of that court’s rulings, AMP filed a five-count civil complaint in the federal District Court, seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of requests that are constitutionally questionable. After the Court concluded that it had jurisdiction to hear the case, it reviewed the requirements for issuance of a preliminary injunction, including whether the plaintiff was likely to prevail on the merits of the case.
The reasons the AG articulated as to why donor information would aid his investigation “reveal a dramatic mismatch between the interests the AG seeks to promote and the sweeping disclosure demand for AMP’s entire donor list.” The demand for the list creates an unnecessary risk of chilling “because it indiscriminately sweeps up the information of every donor on AMP’s lists including those wishing to remain anonymous.” In addition, the demand is not narrowly tailored to achieving the goal of determining whether AMP has received funding from proxies for terrorist organizations,” the Court said.
The Court issued the injunction prohibiting the AG from further enforcing the CID “to the extent that it would require the disclosure protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution until the dispute between the parties has been fully adjudicated through the Virginia state court system.” (AJP Education Foundation v. Miyares, E.D. VA, Alexandria Div., No.1:25-cv-1617, 10/17/25.)
YOU NEED TO KNOW
This is another case recognizing the potential of violation of constitutional rights in the vigorous enforcement of efforts to tie charities to support of terrorism. The reasoning may be useful to charities who undergo investigation by the Internal Revenue Service, as requested by President Trump for positions disfavored by the government.
Add new comment