The Supreme Court of the United States ruled unanimously that a First Choice Women’s Resource Centers may challenge a state subpoena seeking donor information in federal court, handing the organization an important procedural victory centered on First Amendment protections. The 9-0 decision sends the case back to lower courts for further review rather than deciding whether the subpoena itself is lawful.
Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion, emphasizing that freedom of speech, assembly, and petition also include a constitutional right to associate privately with others. He said courts have long recognized that compelled disclosure of supporters or members can burden those rights just as effectively as direct censorship. According to the ruling, demands for donor identities may discourage people from contributing to organizations engaged in protected advocacy.
The case arose after Matt Platkin issued a broad subpoena in 2023 to First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a pro-life nonprofit operating in New Jersey since 1985. The subpoena reportedly sought ten years of records, including donor identities, internal communications, advertising materials, and information about related organizations. State officials were conducting an investigation connected to what was described as a “Reproductive Rights Strike Force.”
The center, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, argued the request lacked evidence of wrongdoing and was motivated by disagreement with its pro-life views. It partially complied by turning over more than 2,000 pages of documents, but sued in federal court to block further disclosure. Its lawyers contended that forcing release of donor names would chill speech, discourage contributions, and violate associational privacy rights.
Lower federal courts had previously ruled that the center should first litigate the dispute in state court because New Jersey had separately filed an enforcement action there. The Supreme Court rejected that approach, holding that plaintiffs alleging constitutional harm do not necessarily have to exhaust state remedies before seeking federal relief.
Gorsuch wrote that a present injury can exist when government action burdens First Amendment rights, and that demands for donor information may themselves create that harm. He warned such disclosure efforts can pressure groups to reduce or alter advocacy the government disfavors.
The ruling does not settle the final legality of New Jersey’s subpoena. Instead, it clears the way for the pregnancy center’s constitutional challenge to proceed in federal court, where judges will now examine whether the subpoena unlawfully infringes protected speech and association rights.
