This Court has held that a plaintiff may challenge
the constitutionality of a burden on speech by alleging that it objectively deters people from exercising
their speech rights—i.e., a "chilling effect." Rio Grande
Foundation (RGF) challenged the constitutionality of a
Santa Fe ordinance that forces nonprofits to reveal
their donors' private information whenever the nonprofit spends more than $250 supporting or opposing a
ballot initiative. RGF alleged that this mandate would
chill speech by a person of ordinary firmness. The
Tenth Circuit, however, held that "an element of a
chilled speech injury is an actual intention not to
speak," and because RGF expects to support or oppose
ballot initiatives in the future, it lacks standing to
bring its chill claim, regardless of whether the ordinance would chill speech by a person of ordinary firmness. Did the Tenth Circuit err?

Did the Tenth Circuit err?