The Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport, siding with a chain of New Jersey-based crisis pregnancy centers in their challenge to a subpoena from the state's attorney general. The ruling allows First Choice to proceed with a federal lawsuit to block New Jersey from obtaining donation records spanning a decade, including donor personal information.
The case originated when New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin launched an investigation into First Choice in 2023, suspecting the organization violated the state's Consumer Fraud Act. Platkin's office sought to determine whether First Choice had misled donors about its mission—specifically, whether the centers provided comprehensive reproductive health care services including abortion care and contraception, when their stated objective was to deter individuals from seeking such services. To pursue this inquiry, Platkin issued a subpoena demanding First Choice produce donation records so his office could contact donors and ask whether they had been deceived.
First Choice argued that the subpoena violated its First Amendment rights and that it could sue in federal court to quash the demand. The organization presented what it described as an anonymous declaration from several donors describing a present chill on their First Amendment-protected right to associate with the organization. The state countered that the case was premature because New Jersey had not yet attempted to enforce the subpoena in court and therefore no injury had materialized.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the court, rejected the state's jurisdictional argument. He concluded that demands for private donor information carry an inherent deterrent effect on the exercise of First Amendment rights. The ruling reaffirmed principles established in a landmark 1958 case, NAACP v. Alabama, in which the Supreme Court protected the privacy of civil rights organization members from state disclosure demands that could expose them to intimidation and harm.
The decision also builds on Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, in which the court recognized that donations constitute a form of protected speech. According to Gorsuch's opinion, each right protected by the First Amendment necessarily carries with it a corresponding right to associate with others in support of shared beliefs.
The First Choice ruling addresses a distinct question from a related 2018 case, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, which examined whether California could require crisis pregnancy centers to inform patients about state-sponsored family planning and abortion services. That court found such mandates violated the centers' First Amendment rights by compelling them to speak messages they opposed. The current case focuses instead on whether governments can compel disclosure of donors' identities.
