The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously backed five faith-based pregnancy centers in New Jersey who sued the state’s former attorney general for forcing them to disclose confidential documents about their donors.
Under the April 29 ruling, First Choice Women’s Resource Center, a Christian nonprofit that provides pregnancy care through its five clinics, can sue over the subpoena in federal court.
The case traces back to 2022, when former state Attorney General Matthew Platkin established a Reproductive Rights Strike Force, intended to protect access to abortions. Platkin then investigated First Choice and accused the organization of “seek[ing] to prevent people from accessing comprehensive reproductive healthcare” by “provid[ing] false or misleading information about abortion.”
According to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the attorney general’s office admitted they never received complaints from the public about First Choice. But Platkin demanded that First Choice divulge donor names, phone numbers, addresses and places of employment, as well as up to 10 years of internal confidential documents. After First Choice refused, asserting it violated their First Amendment rights, Platkin claimed First Choice violated state law by refusing to comply with the subpoena.
“When the organizations protested that they kept donor information private ‘[o]ut of concern for their donors’ anonymity,’ the Attorney General responded by threatening fines and the suspension of each organization’s status as a tax-exempt charity,” the court explained in its decision.
First Choice attempted to challenge the subpoena in federal court, but a judge ruled against the pro-life organization. After an appellate court backed the judge, First Choice asked the Supreme Court to hear its case. The Supreme Court agreed, and the case was heard on Dec. 2.
The April 29 decision allows First Choice to bring its claim back to the federal court.
The high court held that “the State’s demand, like others before it, violated the First Amendment.”
“An official demand for private donor information is enough to discourage reasonable individuals from associating with a group,” the opinion said. “From its allegations and declarations, and given our many and long-standing 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.”
Erin Hawley, the Alliance Defending Freedom lawyer who argued before the Supreme Court on First Choice’s behalf, called the decision a “resounding victory” in which the court recognized First Choice’s constitutional rights.
“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,” Hawley said. “That is blatantly unconstitutional. Should the Attorney General continue these efforts on remand, we look forward to presenting First Choice’s case in federal court.”
Aimee Huber, First Choice’s executive director, applauded the ruling.
“For more than two years, Attorney General Platkin targeted First Choice with aggressive demands for sensitive documents, including our donors’ identities,” said Huber. “He has gone to great lengths to frustrate the important work we do—work that has made a tangible, life-saving difference for tens of thousands of New Jersey women and their children. 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.”
Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council, called the decision a “major victory.”
“The former New Jersey attorney general targeted First Choice because he disagreed with their Christian-based, pro-life mission,” Perkins said. “In this country, Christians have the right to speak freely about their religion and to act on those Biblical beliefs in the broader society. I am grateful that the Supreme Court has once again affirmed this.”
