Supreme Court sides with pro-life center in New Jersey donor records case

The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a unanimous procedural ruling in favor of First Choice Women's Resource Centers, a pro-life pregnancy resource center, allowing it to challenge a New Jersey subpoena in federal court after raising First Amendment concerns over donor information demands tied to a state investigation into alleged deceptive practices discouraging abortion.

The dispute stems from a New Jersey Attorney General investigation led at the time by Matthew Platkin (D), examining whether First Choice misled patients regarding abortion services. As part of the inquiry, state officials issued a subpoena seeking donor lists and other internal records. 

First Choice, which operates five facilities in New Jersey and describes itself as a faith-based nonprofit advocating pro-life views, refused and argued the demands infringed its constitutional rights to free speech and association. Lower courts disagreed, finding the organization had not yet suffered a concrete injury and therefore lacked standing to sue in federal court. 

The Supreme Court reversed that procedural determination, holding that First Choice had sufficiently alleged an injury to its First Amendment associational rights to proceed. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote:

“From its allegations and declarations, and given our many and longstanding precedents in the area and reasonable inferences about third party behavior, First Choice has established that the Attorney General’s demand for private donor information injures the group’s First Amendment associational rights,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote.

The ruling drew broad, cross-ideological attention. First Choice received support from groups including the American Civil Liberties Union, which raised concerns that donor subpoenas can chill participation and discourage contributions. It also received backing from 19 Republican state attorneys general as well as religious organizations such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, all emphasizing concerns about compelled disclosure of donor identities and potential chilling effects on association rights.

New Jersey officials argued that the subpoenaed information would be used narrowly to determine whether donors had been misled about First Choice’s services as part of a consumer fraud investigation. They maintained that no First Amendment violation had occurred because the organization had not yet been forced to produce any documents. State attorneys also warned that allowing immediate federal lawsuits at the subpoena stage could open the door to widespread litigation by businesses routinely subject to investigative demands, potentially hampering enforcement efforts.

The decision is procedurally significant because it clarifies when organizations can challenge investigative subpoenas in federal court before complying. By recognizing that compelled disclosure of donor information may itself constitute a cognizable First Amendment injury, the Court lowered a procedural barrier that had kept First Choice out of court. The ruling does not resolve whether the subpoena is ultimately lawful or whether New Jersey’s consumer fraud investigation is valid, but it ensures that those questions can now be addressed on the merits in federal court. The case is likely to be watched closely by nonprofits, advocacy groups, and state regulators, as it may influence how broadly states can pursue donor-related discovery in investigations involving expressive or religious organizations.