The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a New Jersey pregnancy center can challenge a state subpoena seeking its donor information, marking a significant First Amendment decision. The ruling allows the case to proceed in federal court and sends it back to lower courts for further review.
In a 9-0 opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch said the subpoena raised serious constitutional concerns involving freedom of association. The demand for records was issued by New Jersey officials as part of an investigation tied to a “Reproductive Rights Strike Force,” The Western Journal reported.
“The First Amendment guarantees all Americans the rights to speak, worship, publish, assemble, and petition their government freely,” Gorsuch wrote. “Each of these rights necessarily carries with it ‘a corresponding right to associate with others.’”
Gorsuch emphasized that the court has long recognized the importance of protecting associational rights, particularly for groups expressing minority or dissenting viewpoints. He said those protections are critical in preventing government actions that could suppress lawful advocacy.
“This Court has long held that ‘compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may constitute as effective a restraint on freedom of association’ as more direct forms of suppression,” he wrote.
He added that privacy plays a central role in protecting those rights. He said government efforts to obtain donor information can deter individuals from supporting organizations engaged in constitutionally protected speech.
“Official demands for private donor information ‘inevitabl[y]’ carry with them a ‘deterrent effect on the exercise of First Amendment rights,’” Gorsuch wrote.
The case centers on First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a pro-life pregnancy center that has operated in New Jersey since 1985.
In 2023, New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin issued a sweeping subpoena to the organization. The request sought 10 years of records, including donor identities, internal communications, advertisements, and information about affiliated groups.
Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented First Choice, said the subpoena was issued without evidence of wrongdoing. The group argued the demand was driven by disagreement with the organization’s views.
“Attorney General Platkin did not cite any complaints or evidence that First Choice had violated New Jersey law,” the group said.
The center complied in part, producing more than 2,000 pages of documents. However, it filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block further disclosure, arguing the remaining requests violated the First Amendment.
Attorneys for the organization said forcing disclosure of donor identities would chill speech and discourage support. They argued that individuals have a constitutional right to privately associate with advocacy groups without fear of government exposure.
The legal dispute became more complex when the state filed its own lawsuit in state court to enforce the subpoena. That led lower federal courts to conclude that First Choice should pursue its claims in state court before seeking federal relief.
The Supreme Court rejected that approach and ruled that the organization can proceed directly in federal court. The decision clarifies that plaintiffs alleging constitutional violations do not have to exhaust state court remedies first.
Gorsuch said the organization had demonstrated a present injury tied to its First Amendment rights. He wrote that government demands for donor information can themselves constitute a constitutional harm.
“An injury in fact arises when a defendant burdens a plaintiff’s constitutional rights, and government demands for a charity’s private donor information have just that effect,” he wrote.
The court’s ruling does not determine whether the subpoena is ultimately lawful. Instead, it allows the constitutional challenge to move forward in federal court, where the underlying issues will be examined more fully.
Gorsuch concluded that compelled disclosure can have far-reaching consequences beyond a single case. He warned that such actions can pressure organizations to scale back or alter their activities.
“Such demands inevitably discourage association with groups engaged in protected First Amendment advocacy and encourage groups to cease or modify protected advocacy the government disfavors,” he wrote.