Supreme Court Sides 9-0 with Pregnancy Centers Against New Jersey’s Push to Unmask Donors

First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Davenport

​The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled Wednesday that New Jersey cannot dodge federal court review while demanding confidential donor information from a network of pro-life pregnancy centers. In a forceful Court opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Court reaffirmed a foundational First Amendment principle – government demands for donor lists can chill speech and associational rights long before penalties are imposed. 

The case, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, arose after former New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin subpoenaed donor records and internal documents from First Choice, a faith-based network of crisis pregnancy centers. The organization argued that forcing disclosure of its supporters would intimidate donors and suppress its First Amendment advocacy.

Lower courts dismissed the lawsuit as “premature,” reasoning that New Jersey had not yet formally enforced the subpoena in court. The Court rejected that argument outright.

Justice Gorsuch wrote: “An official demand for private donor information is enough to discourage reasonable individuals from associating with a group.” He added that it is likewise “enough to discourage groups from expressing dissident views.” 

That language cuts to the heart of the First Amendment. The constitutional injury does not suddenly appear the moment the government raids an office to seize files or imposes fines. The chill begins when citizens realize the state may expose their names, affiliations, and beliefs to hostile officials or public retaliation.

Justice Gorsuch also warned about the broader danger of compelled disclosure, leading to even more heavy-handed sanctions: “A government that chooses to make private donor information public may make the damage worse.” 

In this age of doxing, that concern is hardly theoretical. Americans across the political spectrum have seen donors, activists, religious believers, and advocacy groups targeted, threatened, and fired, otherwise harassed after their identities became public. The Court has long recognized this danger, dating back to NAACP v. Alabama (1958), the landmark civil rights-era case protecting membership lists from state officials seeking to intimidate civil rights supporters.

What makes this ruling especially notable is its unanimity. All nine justices agreed that organizations do not have to wait helplessly for the government to complete enforcement proceedings before seeking protection for their First Amendment rights. 

The implications extend far beyond abortion politics. Civil liberties groups that sharply disagree with the mission of crisis pregnancy centers nevertheless supported First Choice’s ability to challenge the subpoena because the precedent threatened advocacy organizations of every ideological stripe.

The ACLU itself warned that broad donor subpoenas “put all advocacy at risk.” 

That unusual coalition underscores an important truth – once government acquires unchecked power to expose supporters of disfavored causes, no political or religious activity will remain safe for long.

This case is also part of a larger national debate over the use of state power to pressure or punish disfavored viewpoints. Whether the target is a religious charity, a political advocacy group, a gun-rights organization, a pro-choice organization in a red state, or a civil liberties nonprofit, compelled disclosure can become a potent tool of intimidation.

The Court came down with a hard slam:

“Since the 1950s, this Court has confronted one official demand after another like the [New Jersey] Attorney General’s. Over and over again, we have held those demands burden the exercise of First Amendment rights. Disputing none of the precedents but seeking ways around them, the Attorney General has offered a variety of arguments. Some are old, some are new, but none succeed.”
​
The Court’s opinion sends a clear message that the First Amendment protects not only the right to speak, but also the right to privately support causes without fear that the government will force citizens onto a public enemies list.

DONATE & HELP US DEFEND YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS