Washington: The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday heard a closely watched case that could shape how far states may go in demanding donor information from religious and pro-life organizations and when such groups may seek relief in federal court.
At issue is whether First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a Christian nonprofit serving pregnant women in New Jersey, can immediately challenge a sweeping state subpoena in federal court under the First Amendment, or whether it must first wait for New Jersey courts to address the matter.
The dispute stems from a 2023 subpoena issued by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin, whose office has targeted crisis pregnancy centers as part of a “reproductive rights strike force.” The subpoena orders First Choice to turn over extensive donor information including names, home addresses, phone numbers, and employers for nearly all contributors.
Platkin’s office argues it needs the data to evaluate whether donors were “misled” into believing First Choice provides abortion services. The center, however, clearly states on its website that it does not perform or refer for abortions.
First Choice says the request violates the First Amendment by threatening its donors with exposure, intimidation, and government questioning. The organization sued in federal court, but the case was dismissed for being “unripe,” with the district judge saying First Choice must wait until the state tries to enforce the subpoena. The Supreme Court agreed to hear whether that dismissal was correct.
The case First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin has attracted an unusually diverse lineup of supporters, including:
• U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
• The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• Dozens of members of Congress
• The Trump administration
• The ACLU
All argue that First Choice should not be forced into a state-court battle before accessing federal constitutional protections.
Representing First Choice, attorney Erin M. Hawley warned that New Jersey’s actions threaten fundamental constitutional freedoms:
“The attorney general issued a sweeping subpoena commanding, on pain of contempt, that First Choice hand over donor names so his office could contact and question them. That violates the right of association.”
Hawley said the subpoena came from a politically hostile office, pointing to the AG’s “consumer alert” cautioning residents to “beware” of crisis pregnancy centers and the strike force created to police them. She also emphasized that no formal complaint had ever been lodged against First Choice.
Arguing for New Jersey, Sundeep Iyer, the AG’s chief counsel, claimed there is no proven “chilling effect” on donors and insisted the subpoena is harmless until a court orders compliance.
But several justices appeared doubtful.
Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned the claim that the subpoena carries no immediate legal risk:
“I don’t know how to read that other than it’s pretty self-executing.”
Justice Elena Kagan pressed the state on how ordinary donors would react to receiving such a document, suggesting they would hardly find comfort in procedural technicalities.
In its amicus brief, the U.S. bishops’ conference said forced donor disclosure threatens religious freedom:
“Compelling disclosure of a religious organization’s financial support violates the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion.”
They argued that many believers give privately as an act of faith and that exposing them undermines both their rights and the mission of ministries like First Choice.
The Supreme Court’s ruling, expected in the coming months, could have sweeping implications for donor privacy, state investigative powers, and the ability of faith-based organizations to challenge government actions before suffering penalties.
For now, the Court must decide one central question: Can First Choice defend its First Amendment rights in federal court immediately or must it wait until New Jersey moves to enforce its subpoena?