Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of an Illinois law that requires nonprofits to publicly disclose their demographic data, arguing that the law violates the First Amendment and requires nonprofits to engage in racial discrimination.

Plaintiff argues that by requiring organizations to publish their demographics, the law "pushes them to hire candidates based on race." Plaintiff also argues that the law "forces" organizations to "speak about a host of controversial demographic issues that they don't want to discuss, advertise, or endorse."

Defendants argues that the demographic data is important to consumers because it allows them to see "whether a large charity's directors reflect the communities whose interests it purports to advance".

On April 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction to stop the enforcement of the Illinois law. Defendant then filed a motion to dismiss for lack of standing. They argue that Plaintiff failed to show how its members had been harmed by the law and failed to name a member of their organization who could sue in their own right. Additionally, Defendant asserted that dismissal was warranted because Plaintiff failed to state a valid claim.

Plaintiff amended their complaint, and due to this on May 19, 2025, the court struck down Defendant's motion to dismiss as moot. However, Defendant filed another motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on May 20, 2025.

On August 20, 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss. The court also denied Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. As to the motion to dismiss, the court held that Plaintiff's had standing because the law doesn't require them to divulge the name of a member who could sue in their own right. However, the court found that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that they would be imminently harmed by the law's requirement that nonprofits post on its website any demographics information it collects. The court held that nothing in the law indicates that nonprofits are required to post if they do not receive demographic information. Additionally, Plaintiff did not allege that its members received demographic information that the law obligates them to post. However, the court did find that Plaintiff established that their members would be imminently harmed by asking their officers and directors demographics questions that they wouldn't want to discuss.

As to the motion for preliminary injunction, the court denied it because Plaintiff was unable to demonstrate the likelihood of success on the merits for its First Amendment claim based on the collection of demographic information. Nor could Plaintiff sufficiently demonstrate how it would be irreparably harmed without the injunction.

On August 21, 2025, Plaintiff appealed the court's decision.