WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a group of faith-based pregnancy centers can challenge New Jersey’s unconstitutional subpoena for its donor records in federal court before the state officially moves to enforce it. 

In First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport (originally v. Platkin), SCOTUS resolved a technical but urgent constitutional question of whether a state subpoena that chills First Amendment rights must first be litigated in state court before seeking federal court relief. The lower courts ruled the pregnancy centers could not bring their case in federal court until a state court could address the claims. However, the Justices stated the law “guarantees a federal forum” for those who “claim unconstitutional treatment at the hands of state officials.”

The decision sends the case back down to a lower federal court for it to consider the pregnancy centers' claims that the subpoena unconstitutionally infringes on their First Amendment freedoms.

In 2023, the New Jersey attorney general issued the subpoena to First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. claiming the centers were “misleading” consumers with a vague website unclear about its pro-life stance and for advertising the Abortion Pill Reversal (APR) protocol, and thus demanded to have its donor records and operational records spanning the last 10 years. The High Court noted the subpoena itself created a “present injury” because it forced the pregnancy centers to weigh compromising their First Amendment rights by handing over their private donor information or face government sanction—a choice stemming from their viewpoint disfavored by New Jersey officials. The Justices stated the subpoena violated the pregnancy centers’ First Amendment right to free association because disclosure of its sensitive donor rolls would be an inherent “chill” on the group’s associations. 

“An official demand for private donor information is enough to discourage reasonable individuals from associating with a group,” wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch, who authored the unanimous opinion. “Whether the subpoena’s demands and penalties were immediately enforceable or contingent on future court action, donors would reasonably fear disclosure and hesitate to associate.”

These demands “chill” First Amendment associational rights even when disclosure is only to the government and not the public, noted the opinion.

Justice Gorsuch concluded that “associational rights carry special significance,” and federal courts have the “virtually unflagging obligation” to take jurisdiction when state actions try to marginalize or suppress this expression. 

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “The U.S. Supreme Court has rightly ruled that organizations can challenge unlawful state demands in federal court. The New Jersey Attorney General’s subpoena violates the First Amendment by demanding First Choice Women's Resource Centers break the confidentiality of its donors and associates without any evidence of wrongdoing or any compelling need. The government has no business harassing pro-life ministries and its supporters because it disagrees with their pro-life cause.”

For media interviews, please email [email protected].