This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Petitioner, illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan sued Telemarketing Associates Inc. alleging that charitable solicitations were fraudulent because only a nominal amount of each donation actually reached the charitable purpose.
According to Petitioner (Richard S. Huszagh), the dispute focuses on how much of the donated money actually goes to the charitable purpose versus how much is retained for fundraising costs.
Background and question before the Court
The matter came on for oral argument before the Supreme Court of the United States at 11:02 a.m.
Justice asked: “What about 25 percent going to the charitable purpose?”
What each side argues
Petitioner (Illinois Attorney General)
According to Petitioner (Richard S. Huszagh), it is unquestionably fraudulent to induce a donation by claiming a specific charitable purpose when, in fact, only a nominal amount goes to that purpose and the solicitor keeps the vast majority.
Respondents (Telemarketing Associates Inc.)
According to Respondents (Mr. Copilevitz), charities’ decisions about how much to spend on fundraising are a measure of judgment, constitute protected speech, and cannot be second‑guessed.
Defendants argue that unless there is an explicit factual misrepresentation, they should receive blanket immunity from liability for charitable fundraising claims.
What happened at oral argument
Justice asked: “What about 25 percent going to the charitable purpose?”
According to Justice (unspecified), justice asked: “But isn’t that essentially… telephone calls… to Vietnam… what is happening here?”
According to Justice, justice said: “I’m not understanding.”
According to Justice, justice said: “No.”
According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, chief Justice Rehnquist: “Thank you, Mr. Huszagh. The case is submitted.”
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to United States (Amicus Curiae), the government has authority to protect the public from fraud, even when the representations involve speech.
Intent to deceive is a key element of common‑law fraud and determines liability for charitable solicitations.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- cb8c5d5083681419c11a-r1-5dc8d619552069c2.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 20, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.