American Muslims for
Palestine v. Miyares

In October 2023, Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares publicly announced an investigation into American Muslims for Palestine, a nonprofit with its mission to advance the awareness of Palestinian issues by educating the American public. Using a legal tool known as a civil investigative demand, the Attorney General’s office demanded a broad array of documents, including internal records, banking information, and detailed lists of AMP’s donors and supporters. Supreme Court cases already hold state Attorneys General have no entitlement to this information.

AMP acknowledges that it initially did not know about one of Virginia’s charitable registration requirements, and promptly took steps to correct that by registering with the state and providing reasonably requested documents. AMP stood by its objection and resisted demands for donor lists, arguing that compelled disclosure of those names chills supporters’ willingness to associate with and donate to AMP, and that the demand exceeded the rights of the Attorney General and derived from viewpoint discrimination and political motivations.

In September 2025, after AMP maintained its objections to produce the donor lists, a Virginia state court judge held the organization in contempt and ordered escalating fines of $1,000 per day until AMP turned over the protected lists and other sensitive information. AMP then filed a petition and complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, asserting that the donor list demands and contempt order violate the First Amendment and other protected rights, and seeking federal relief.

This case raises central questions about the limits of state investigative powers that intersect with protected speech and association.

The Complaint contains the following allegations:

• violations of the First Amendment freedom of association, based on the demand for donor lists and the threat of fines for failing to disclose them.
• violations of the First Amendment’s protection against viewpoint discrimination or politically motivated investigations targeting pro-Palestinian nonprofits and speech.
• violations of due process and related protections under the Fourteenth Amendment, tied to an investigative demand with doubtful constitutionality and retaliatory motives.
• Claims under federal civil rights statutes seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of intrusive and unjustified demands and sanctions that infringe core constitutional rights.

Not every argument made in court appears here. The focus of the case centers on constitutional and statutory issues.

Key publicly available filings and court orders in this case may include:

• Federal Petition and Complaint (filed September 26, 2025):
  AMP’s initial federal filing outlining the investigation, demands, contempt order, and constitutional claims.
• Injunction and Restraining Order (October 17, 2025):
  Judge Brinkema’s written opinion granting injunctive relief, explaining that the harm to associational rights cannot be undone once forced compliance occurs, even if a court later finds the demand unconstitutional.
• Subsequent briefing and orders:
  As of April 2026, the injunction remains in place.

This case clarifies that state officials can not demand sensitive information with impugnity or cross constitutional lines.

• When demands for protected information infringe freedom of association and other protected rights.
• How courts must fairly balance legitimate enforcement interests with the risk of chilling political, religious, or advocacy speech and actions protected under the law.
• What safeguards must occur before permitting fines or other sanctions to coerce disclosure of protected information.

The outcome will impact not only AMP, but also many other nonprofits whose supporters may hesitate to participate if they believe their names could land in the hands of government officials in contentious investigations.