SCOTUS rules 9-0 for NJ pregnancy center in donor privacy case

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the unanimous opinion reversing the lower courts and allowing First Choice's federal lawsuit to proceed. He drew directly on NAACP v. Alabama (1958), in which the NAACP successfully resisted Alabama's demand for its membership lists on First Amendment associational grounds. Gorsuch wrote that since the 1950s, the Court has held 'one official demand after another like the Attorney General's' burdens First Amendment rights, and none of the state's arguments provided a reason to depart from that precedent.

Gorsuch concluded that First Choice established a sufficient First Amendment injury based on its allegations and declarations showing that the subpoena was already causing donors to rethink their financial support. He 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.' The ruling remands the case to lower federal courts to decide whether the subpoena itself violates the First Amendment.

The case carries significant implications beyond the anti-abortion context because the First Amendment's protection for organizational donor privacy applies regardless of the organization's political or ideological orientation. The ACLU of New Jersey, which supports abortion rights, filed an amicus brief alongside the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) arguing that federal courts must be available to promptly review claims that government subpoenas chill First Amendment rights. This cross-ideological alliance reflected genuine concern that states could use investigative subpoenas as harassment tools against organizations they disfavor.

New Jersey argued that allowing federal court access before subpoena enforcement would open the floodgates of litigation, since governments issue thousands of investigative subpoenas every year. The state contended that First Choice's alleged injury was too speculative because no documents had yet been produced and no donor had been identified as withdrawing support. The Court rejected this argument, finding that the credible threat of donor disclosure was itself an injury sufficient to support federal jurisdiction.

The Trump administration filed a brief supporting First Choice's position. The Department of Justice argued that the consequences of allowing early federal court access would be minimal because the ruling would apply only to organizations making genuine First Amendment claims, and that state investigations could still proceed through federal courts in a more orderly fashion. The administration's support aligned with its broader stance against what it characterized as state-level overreach targeting groups with politically disfavored views.

Platkin, who issued the subpoena, left office in January when a new governor took power. Current New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport emphasized that the Supreme Court's decision was procedural, not substantive — it only allows First Choice to file the challenge in federal court, not that the challenge will succeed. Davenport said New Jersey law requires nonprofits that operate in the state to comply with consumer fraud laws regardless of their ideological mission and that the investigation would continue.

The ruling does not address whether First Choice actually misled donors or clients, whether the subpoena was lawfully issued, or whether the requested documents must ultimately be produced. Those questions return to the U.S. District Court for New Jersey. The state court enforcement proceeding is also still pending — a judge had ordered the parties to negotiate the scope of the subpoena rather than immediately requiring full compliance.

The decision creates binding precedent that organizations facing state investigative subpoenas can assert First Amendment injury in federal court based on a credible chilling effect on donors and supporters, without waiting for the state to seek contempt sanctions. Legal scholars noted this makes federal courts a more accessible forum for challenging government investigations of advocacy organizations, which could benefit groups across the political spectrum — from anti-abortion pregnancy centers to immigration advocacy groups to environmental nonprofits.

The case name changed from First Choice v. Platkin to First Choice v. Davenport as a result of Platkin's departure from office. Platkin issued the subpoena while serving as New Jersey's Democratic attorney general following the Supreme Court's 2022 Dobbs decision that eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion.

He characterized pregnancy centers that counsel women against abortions as potentially misleading because their marketing might not clearly disclose that they do not provide abortion services. First Choice called the investigation politically motivated, noting in court filings that Platkin had 'made no secret of his hostility toward pregnancy centers.' The organization said the subpoena was designed to intimidate its operations and deter supporters from donating. The ACLU-NJ, while backing First Choice's procedural argument, separately maintained that state governments retain authority to investigate nonprofits for genuine consumer fraud violations, regardless of the Court's ruling on federal court access.

The First Choice ruling has broader implications for all nonprofit advocacy organizations, not just pregnancy centers. State attorneys general have broad subpoena authority to investigate consumer fraud, charitable solicitation, and professional licensing violations. The ruling creates a new pathway for any nonprofit — including civil rights groups, environmental organizations, religious institutions, and ideologically diverse advocacy groups — to challenge state investigatory demands in federal court before complying, without waiting for enforcement.

Legal scholars and civil liberties groups across the political spectrum noted the unanimous nature of the ruling as particularly significant. The ACLU, which generally does not align with First Choice on abortion-related issues, filed an amicus brief supporting First Choice's right to have its constitutional claims heard in federal court. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press submitted a similar brief, noting that the same federal-court access issue arises when state governments subpoena journalists' sources. The 9-0 vote suggests the Court found the jurisdictional question — whether federal courts must hear such claims — separable from the underlying constitutional merits about whether the subpoena was valid.