A pro-life pregnancy organization can sue in federal court to keep its donors’ names private, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday.
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a religious non-profit, is a collection of five licensed medical centers offering free services and material support to women facing unplanned pregnancies.
In 2022, New Jersey’s Attorney General established a “Reproductive Rights Strike Force,” prepared in partnership with Planned Parenthood, that issued a consumer alert against groups like First Choice. Without identifying a single public complaint, then-Attorney General Matthew Platkin targeted First Choice for investigation, issuing a subpoena demanding years of sensitive internal information—including names, phone numbers, addresses, and places of employment of its donors—regarding nearly 5,000 contributions to its mission. The subpoena was backed by a threat of court-ordered compliance and sanctions should First Choice resist.
To protect its donors’ First Amendment rights, as well as its own, First Choice sued in federal court to block enforcement of the subpoena. The group argued that the demand made it impossible to guarantee donors’ anonymity, discouraging them from associating with the organization—an injury sufficient to support a federal claim.
A flurry of litigation ensued. In a tactical move, the Attorney General responded with his own suit in state court, where he accused First Choice of violating state law by failing to comply with the subpoena. The district court denied First Choice’s request to block the subpoena and dismissed the case, essentially forcing First Choice to litigate in state court before coming to federal court. A divided panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
Last year, First Choice petitioned the Supreme Court. On August 28, 2025, the Legal Insurrection Foundation’s Equal Protection Project (EPP) filed an amicus curiae, or “friend-of-the-court,” brief in First Choice v. Platkin.[*] urging the Court to uphold the free association rights the First Amendment guarantees and protect non-profits.
The Court took their case and heard oral argument in December 2025. Attorney Erin Hawley, representing First Choice, argued that the subpoena violated First Choice’s First Amendment right of association the moment it was received—not only if and when the state court enforced it.
Yesterday, all nine Justices agreed. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Gorsuch held that the Attorney General’s subpoena for private donor information burdened First Choice’s First Amendment right of association, giving the group standing—the legal right to bring its claims—in federal court. Rejecting the AG’s argument that no injury exists until a court actually enforces the subpoena, Justice Gorsuch wrote:
The question before us isn’t how badly the Attorney General has burdened First Choice’s associational rights; the question is whether he has burdened those rights at all. … [B]y effectively restricting how First Choice may interact privately with its donors, the subpoena did just that.
The Court held that the subpoena caused First Choice an ongoing First Amendment injury—one that the group “continues to experience so long as the subpoena remains outstanding.” As Gorsuch put it, invoking a prior decision, “[T]he value of a sword of Damocles is that it hangs—not that it drops.”
Yesterday’s ruling does not end the fight: the case now returns to federal district court, where the constitutionality of the subpoena itself will be litigated. But by opening the federal courthouse doors to First Choice and groups like it, the Court has once again made clear that the government cannot use the threat of disclosure to chill First Amendment rights while shielding itself from legal challenge.
[*] Jennifer Davenport’s name appears in the caption of the case because she succeeded Mr. Platkin as New Jersey’s Attorney General after this case was argued and submitted for decision.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY