Supreme Court Allows Federal Challenge To New Jersey Donor Subpoena

In a unanimous decision with sweeping implications for free speech and privacy rights, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a New Jersey pregnancy center may challenge a state subpoena demanding access to its donor records—delivering a major victory for First Amendment protections.

Writing for the 9-0 Court, Neil Gorsuch emphasized that the subpoena raised serious constitutional concerns, particularly regarding the right to freely associate without government intrusion. The case now returns to lower courts for further review, but the justices made clear that such challenges deserve a full hearing in federal court.

“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.’”

At the heart of the dispute is First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a pro-life nonprofit that has operated since 1985. The group became the target of a sweeping subpoena issued by Matt Platkin in 2023, seeking a decade’s worth of internal documents—including donor identities, communications, and advertising materials—as part of an investigation linked to a so-called “Reproductive Rights Strike Force.”

Gorsuch underscored the Court’s long-standing recognition that compelled disclosure of group affiliations can function as a form of indirect censorship.

“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 further warned that forcing organizations to reveal donor information can discourage Americans from supporting causes—especially those advancing viewpoints outside the political mainstream.

“Official demands for private donor information ‘inevitabl[y]’ carry with them a ‘deterrent effect on the exercise of First Amendment rights,’” Gorsuch wrote.

Represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, First Choice argued that the subpoena lacked any credible basis and was driven by ideological disagreement rather than evidence of wrongdoing.

“Attorney General Platkin did not cite any complaints or evidence that First Choice had violated New Jersey law,” the group said.

While the organization partially complied—turning over more than 2,000 pages of documents—it drew the line at disclosing sensitive donor information. It then filed suit in federal court, asserting that such compelled disclosure would chill speech and undermine constitutionally protected association.

The legal battle intensified when New Jersey officials attempted to enforce the subpoena through state courts, prompting lower federal courts to initially defer jurisdiction. The Supreme Court rejected that approach, ruling that plaintiffs alleging violations of constitutional rights—particularly under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution—are entitled to bring their claims directly in federal court.

Gorsuch made clear that the harm in such cases is not hypothetical.

“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.

Although the ruling does not settle whether the subpoena itself is lawful, it marks a significant step in reinforcing constitutional guardrails against government overreach. The case will now proceed in federal court, where the broader legal questions will be examined in full.

Gorsuch closed with a warning about the broader implications of compelled disclosure, noting that such tactics can pressure organizations to scale back their mission or silence themselves altogether.

“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.

For advocates of free speech and limited government, the ruling signals that even in contentious political environments, constitutional protections remain firmly in place—and that efforts to compel disclosure of private associations will face serious judicial scrutiny.