EDITOR’S NOTE: Michael K. Whitehead and Jonathan Whitehead practice law in Lee’s Summit, Missouri and often serve as allied attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom. Mike serves on the Board of Directors for ADF. The personal views expressed are their own.
In a unanimous First Amendment decision issued April 29, the United States Supreme Court dealt a decisive blow to a New Jersey attorney general who attempted to compel a faith-based pregnancy center to disclose the identities of its private donors.
In First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport, the Court held that the New Jersey attorney general’s subpoena—demanding ten years of documents, including the names and contact information of every donor who gave by mail, in person, through social media, or through the group’s websites—violated First Choice’s constitutional right of free association. The Court reversed the Third Circuit and reinstated First Choice’s federal lawsuit.
The 9–0 decision, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch—who also wrote last month’s Chiles v. Salazar opinion—builds directly on more than six decades of precedent protecting Americans from government-compelled disclosure of their private associations.
The facts: A “strike force” targets a pregnancy ministry
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers has served pregnant women in New Jersey since 1985, offering parenting classes, free ultrasounds, baby clothing, and other life-affirming resources. The organization believes life begins at conception and does not provide abortions or abortion referrals.
Following the Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs decision, newly inaugurated New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin launched what his office called a “Reproductive Rights Strike Force.” In 2022, the strike force issued a consumer alert accusing First Choice and similar organizations of seeking to prevent women from receiving “reproductive health care.” In November 2023, Platkin’s office served First Choice with a sweeping subpoena demanding 28 categories of documents—including the personal information of every donor who gave through any channel other than one specific webpage.
First Choice, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, challenged the subpoena in federal court as an unconstitutional assault on its First Amendment rights of speech and association. Both the federal district court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the lawsuit on procedural grounds, ruling that the case was not yet ripe for federal review because the subpoena had not yet been enforced. ADF petitioned the Supreme Court for review in January 2025, and the Court granted certiorari in June 2025. Oral argument was held on December 2, 2025.
What the Supreme Court decided
The Court held that the subpoena itself—even before enforcement—caused First Choice a present, ongoing injury to its First Amendment associational rights, sufficient to confer standing to sue in federal court.
Justice Gorsuch wrote that the First Amendment “guarantees all Americans the rights to speak, worship, publish, assemble, and petition their government freely,” and that each of those rights carries “a corresponding right to associate with others.” The Court emphasized that associational rights hold “special significance for political, social, religious, and other minorities,” protecting dissident expression from suppression by those in power.
The Court applied the landmark precedent of NAACP v. Alabama (1958), which recognized that compelled disclosure of membership or donor lists can be “as effective a restraint on freedom of association” as more direct forms of government suppression. Demands for private donor information, the Court reiterated, burden First Amendment rights “even when those demands contemplate disclosure only to government officials and not the general public.”
The Court swept aside New Jersey’s arguments that the subpoena was merely investigative, unenforced, and partially limited in scope. As Justice Gorsuch concluded, “Since the 1950s, this Court has confronted one official demand after another like the Attorney General’s. Over and again, we have held those demands burden the exercise of First Amendment rights. . . . Some [of the state’s arguments] are old, some are new, but none succeeds.”
The case now returns to federal court for litigation on the merits.
An important distinction
This decision is procedurally focused: the Court held that First Choice has standing to pursue its constitutional claims in federal court—not that the subpoena will be struck down on remand. New Jersey’s current attorney general, Jennifer Davenport, characterized the ruling as “procedural” and indicated the state will continue its investigation. First Choice and ADF have signaled they are prepared to litigate the merits.
That said, the Court’s reasoning leaves little doubt about the constitutional weight of the claim. A unanimous Court does not merely wave a case back downstairs—it sends a signal to every state attorney general who might be tempted to wield subpoena power against organizations whose views they find inconvenient.
Broader impact: A shield for churches, ministries & nonprofits
The First-Choice decision arrives as a companion to last month’s Chiles v. Salazar ruling, extending ADF’s string of Supreme Court victories and reinforcing a clear constitutional principle: government officials cannot weaponize their regulatory authority against organizations—or their donors and members—simply because those organizations hold disfavored viewpoints.
For Missouri Baptist churches and ministries, the ruling carries direct practical significance. Any government entity—federal, state, or local—that demands donor lists, membership records, or internal ministry documents as part of a politically motivated investigation faces the same constitutional barrier the Court just raised unanimously.
The ruling also has implications for the First Amendment rights of churches whose members and donors might otherwise hesitate to give if disclosure of their donor data could be compelled by hostile government officials.
ADF’s record at the Supreme Court
With First Choice, the Alliance Defending Freedom has now secured 18 direct Supreme Court victories since 2011 and has played a role in 84 total victories since its founding in 1994. The back-to-back wins in Chiles and First Choice—both authored by Justice Gorsuch within 30 days—underscore ADF’s continuing impact at the nation’s highest court on behalf of religious freedom and free speech.
Comment from ADF counsel Erin Hawley
ADF Of Counsel Erin Hawley, who argued the case in December, said. “New Jersey’s attorney general targeted First Choice—a ministry that provides parenting classes, free ultrasounds, baby clothes, and more to its community—simply because of its pro-life views. That is blatantly unconstitutional.”
Comment from Aimee Huber, First Choice executive director
“For more than two years, Attorney General Platkin targeted First Choice with aggressive demands for sensitive documents, including our donors’ identities,” said Aimee Hube, who leads First Choice. “As the Supreme Court recognized, the government cannot evade federal court review when it harasses those who support pro-life ministries just because it disagrees with their message and their mission.”
