In a case with significant implications for pro-life and faith-based organizations nationwide, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a unanimous decision allowing a New Jersey pregnancy center to move forward with its legal challenge against a state subpoena seeking donor information.
The ruling marks a key development in a closely watched legal battle that has raised concerns about free speech, donor privacy, and the ability of nonprofits to operate without government interference.
The case, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, centers on a 2023 subpoena issued by New Jersey’s attorney general demanding extensive donor records and internal documents from the Care Net-affiliated organization. First Choice alleged that its inability to guarantee its donors’ anonymity in the face of the Attorney General’s demands injured the group by discouraging donors from associating with it.
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorneys representing First Choice asked the Supreme Court to allow them to pursue the case in federal court. The Supreme Court did not rule on the validity of the subpoena itself but decided that First Choice has the right to challenge it in federal court rather than state court. Previous attempts to bring the case in federal court were denied by lower courts.
“In this resounding victory, the Supreme Court held to its long-standing precedent of recognizing that the Constitution protects First Choice and its donors from demands by a hostile state official to disclose donor identities and contact information,” said ADF Counsel Erin Hawley, who argued before the Supreme Court in December.
In its 9-0 decision, the Court emphasized that even the threat of disclosure can burden First Amendment rights, reinforcing concerns that government demands for sensitive information may impact donors and limit the work of organizations serving women and families.
“An official demand for private donor information is enough to discourage reasonable individuals from associating with a group. It is enough to discourage groups from expressing dissident views,” wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch.
In 2023, Matthew Platkin, the New Jersey attorney general at the time, served a subpoena demanding that First Choice identify the people behind nearly 5,000 donations and produce up to 10 years of its internal, confidential documents.
First Choice, which has five locations in New Jersey, has since challenged what it considers to be an unconstitutional investigation.
In January, Platkin stepped down as attorney general after four years in the role. During that time, New Jersey emerged as one of the most hostile states for pro-life work, with pregnancy centers facing growing legal pressure through investigations and legislative efforts that have raised concerns about their ability to operate freely.
“For more than two years, Attorney General Platkin targeted First Choice with aggressive demands for sensitive documents, including our donors’ identities,” said First Choice Executive Director Aimee Huber. “He has gone to great lengths to frustrate the important work we do. As the Supreme Court recognized, the government can’t evade federal court review when it harasses those who support pro-life ministries just because it disagrees with their message and their mission.”
Echoing those concerns, Hawley emphasized the broader constitutional implications of the case moving forward.
“New Jersey’s attorney general targeted First Choice—a ministry that provides parenting classes, free ultrasounds, baby clothes, and more to its community—simply because of its pro-life views,” she said. “That is blatantly unconstitutional. Should the (current) Attorney General continue these efforts on remand, we look forward to presenting First Choice’s case in federal court.”
In the recent SCOTUS decision, justices referred back to NAACP v. Alabama (1958), a case in which the Supreme Court reversed a ruling by the Alabama state courts that fined the NAACP $100,000 for refusing to disclose its membership rolls in response to a request from the state’s attorney general.
“Since the 1950s, this Court has confronted one official demand after another like the (New Jersey) Attorney General’s,” wrote Justice Gorsuch in the Court’s opinion. “Over and again, we have held those demands burden the exercise of First Amendment rights. Disputing none of these precedents but seeking ways around them, the (New Jersey) Attorney General has offered a variety of arguments. Some are old, some are new, but none succeeds.”