In a unanimous ruling (First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport), the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday confirmed the right of New Jersey pregnancy centers to bring a federal lawsuit when state actions infringed upon their right to free association. “The former New Jersey attorney general targeted First Choice because he disagreed with their Christian-based, pro-life mission,” said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. “The Court’s ruling that the former New Jersey attorney general illegally targeted First Choice Women’s Resource Center is a major victory.”

The case dates back to 2022, when then-Democratic New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin’s “Reproductive Rights Strike Force” issued a “consumer alert” accusing pro-life pregnancy centers like those run by First Choice of “provid[ing] false or misleading information about abortion” and inviting dissatisfied clients to “please file a complaint with the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs.”supreme

The state never “received any complaints from the public about First Choice,” recorded the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Despite receiving no complaints, the pro-abortion “Strike Force” strategized other ways to target pro-life pregnancy clinics.

In 2023, the attorney general’s office subpoenaed First Choice, giving the organization 30 days to produce “28 categories of documents (categories that themselves included as many as 29 subcategories),” including “documents reflecting the names, phone numbers, addresses, and places of employment of all individuals who had made ‘donations … to First Choice …’” through any means other than a single web page. That is, the state demanded personal information on all donors who donated “through two other websites, through the group’s various social media pages, by mail, in person, or by any other means.”

“Though the subpoena did not explain why the Attorney General sought First Choice’s donor records,” the court said, “Mr. Platkin later represented that his office hoped to ‘contact a representative sample [of donors to] determine’ if they had ‘been misled’ by First Choice about its ‘mission and operations.’” This rationale tacitly admits that the attorney general’s office had no good reason to suspect First Choice of wrongdoing.

In response to the subpoena, First Choice filed a lawsuit in federal court to block the subpoena. Soon afterward, Attorney General Platkin sued in state court to compel First Choice to comply with the subpoena. The federal district court dismissed First Choice’s lawsuit on the grounds that they “failed to state a justiciable claim as a matter of law,” as litigation was still proceeding in state courts.

On appeal, a panel of the Third Circuit upheld the lower court’s dismissal in a split (2-1) decision, reasoning “that First Choice had not established ‘enough of an injury’ to permit its case to proceed,” the court summarized. After the court heard oral arguments on December 2, 2025, Jennifer Davenport became New Jersey’s new attorney general on January 20 — hence the change in the name of the case.

Based on this procedural history, the issue before the Supreme Court did not reach the merits of First Choice’s First Amendment claim but addressed the “narrow question” of whether First Choice had standing to sue in an Article III (federal) court. On this question of standing, the Supreme Court delivered a unanimous verdict.

The Supreme Court decision invoked a lengthy series of precedents dating back to its 1958 decision, NAACP v. Alabama. In that ruling, the court unanimously held that the First Amendment protected the NAACP from disclosing its membership rolls to the pro-segregation attorney general of Alabama. “In doing so,” the court commented, “we began by observing the ‘vital relationship’ between ‘privacy in one’s associations’ and the ‘freedom to associate.’” The appeal to this precedent also signaled that the First Amendment equally protects groups on either side of the political spectrum.

More recently, the Supreme Court cited its 6-3 decision in AFP v. Bonta (2021), where California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) had sought to obtain donor information from the Americans for Prosperity Foundation and the Thomas More Law Center. The Thomas More Law Center in particular had been a thorn in the side of previous California attorneys general Kamala Harris and Xavier Becerra, as it defended pro-life journalist David Daleiden from state prosecution and led a successful challenge to California’s gender secrecy policy. In that ruling, the Supreme Court once again prevented the state from accessing the personal records of anonymous donors.

“Against this backdrop, the question before us all but answers itself,” the Supreme Court reasoned. When Platkin’s subpoena informed First Choice, “‘You are hereby commanded to produce’ a variety of documents,” this was “more than enough to establish injury in fact under our precedents,” the court said. “An injury in fact does not arise only when a defendant causes a tangible harm to a plaintiff, like a physical injury or monetary loss. It can also arise when a defendant burdens a plaintiff ’s constitutional rights.”

Surprisingly, the attorney general did not dispute the precedents and even declined to defend the lower court’s reasoning, the court reflected. Instead, Platkin argued that his office’s subpoenas are “non-self-executing” and “impose no obligations of their own,” so they cannot “objectively chill” First Amendment rights. (In response, Justice Clarence Thomas replied in oral arguments, “I’ve never heard the term ‘subpoena request.’”)

If that theory failed to persuade the court, Platkin had more of the same quality. “Even if a non-self-executing

subpoena seeking donor information can objectively chill First Amendment freedoms,” the court summarized, Platkin maintained that his did not because the subpoena “did not seek information about individuals who give through one website.”

Thirdly, Platkin argued that “his demand cannot injure First Choice because a state court will soon, and with his assent, issue a protective order requiring him to keep confidential any documents the group produces,” the court said. But “an official demand for private donor information is enough to discourage reasonable individuals from associating with a group,” even if the official promises to keep the information confidential. The court was not impressed.

“Since the 1950s, this Court has confronted one official demand after another like the Attorney General’s,” the court concluded. “Over and again, we have held those demands burden the exercise of First Amendment rights. Disputing none of these precedents but seeking ways around them, the Attorney General has offered a variety of arguments. Some are old, some are new, but none succeeds.”

The Supreme Court reversed the Third Circuit and district court decisions and returned the case to the district court to consider the case on its merits.

“In this resounding victory, the Supreme Court held to its long-standing precedent of recognizing that the Constitution protects First Choice and its donors from demands by a hostile state official to disclose donor identities and contact information,” declared ADF Of Counsel Erin Hawley, who argued the case before the Supreme Court. “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. Should the Attorney General continue these efforts on remand, we look forward to presenting First Choice’s case in federal court.”

After this ruling, said Perkins, “First Choice can finally be free to carry out and focus solely on its mission to serve pregnant mothers, mothers of newborns, and fathers on the journey of parenthood, without being distracted by a bureaucratic minefield set by the state of New Jersey.”