A group of pregnancy resource centers may challenge the constitutionality of a state order forcing them to disclose the names of their donors, the Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision today.
The encouraging ruling affirms long-standing First Amendment protections allowing Americans to donate freely and privately to causes they believe in.
As the Daily Citizen previously reported, the Court heard oral arguments First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin on December 2, 2025.
The case centered around a subpoena New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin issued First Choice, a group of five, faith-based pregnancy resource centers, in 2022.
The order, which followed a consumer alert released by Platkin’s office accusing pro-life pregnancy resource centers of “providing false or misleading abortion information,” directed First Choice to release the names and personal details of many of their donors.
First Choice, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, sued to stop Platkin from enforcing the subpoena, arguing the order violated their First Amendment rights by discouraging donors from associating with them.
The federal district court dismissed First Choice’s complaint, arguing the group’s First Amendment rights had not yet been violated because the New Jersey state court had not yet ordered them to turn over their donors’ information.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling on December 12, 2024 in a divided panel decision.
The Supreme Court’s ruling, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, overturns the previous two rulings, finding Platkin’s subpoena plausibly violated First Choice’s First Amendment rights — even if the attorney general had taken no action to force the pregnancy resource centers to turn over their sensitive documents.
“An official demand for private donor information is enough to discourage reasonable individuals from associating with a group,” the opinion reads, concluding:
First Choice has established that the Attorney General’s demand for private donor information injures the group’s First Amendment associational rights.
The Court further found First Choice does not have to finish pleading their case in New Jersey state court before pursuing a First Amendment claim in federal court.
“Our cases have already rejected the notion that a litigant must exhaust available state court remedies before seeking to vindicate its federal constitutional rights in federal court,” Gorsuch wrote.
The Court’s decision doesn’t just allow First Choice to pursue a preliminary injunction against Platkin’s subpoena in federal court. It also reiterates that states can neither force nor threaten to force faith-based groups to reveal their donors’ names or personal information.
Some ideologically motivated organizations and government leaders use intimidation tactics like these to tie pro-life groups up in court, violate their donors’ privacy and choke off their donations.
“For more than two years, Attorney General Platkin targeted First Choice with aggressive demands for sensitive documents, including our donors’ identities,” First Choice Executive Director Aimee Huber wrote in a press release for ADF.
She concluded:
As the Supreme Court recognized, the government can’t evade federal court review when it harasses those who support pro-life ministries just because it disagrees with their message and their mission.
The Daily Citizen will continue following this important story.
Additional Articles and Resources
SCOTUS Indicates Support for Pregnancy Resource Centers and Donor Privacy
