Supreme Court Backs Anti-Abortion Centers in Donor Privacy Ruling, Citing First Amendment

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered a unanimous 9-0 ruling that New Jersey’s attempt to investigate an anti-abortion crisis pregnancy center for allegedly misleading consumers violated the First Amendment.

The decision centered on a sweeping subpoena issued by then-New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who sought donor information from First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a chain of anti-abortion pregnancy centers in northeastern New Jersey. The justices concluded that the subpoena "burdened First Choice’s associational rights."

The ruling clears the way for First Choice to proceed with a federal lawsuit challenging the subpoena.

"Demands for private donor information… ‘chill’ protected First Amendment associational rights even when those demands contemplate disclosure only to government officials and not ‘the general public,’"

The decision drew direct parallels to Alabama’s 1950s efforts to force the NAACP to disclose its members’ names and addresses. The Supreme Court sided with the NAACP in its landmark 1958 ruling.

"Associational rights carry special significance for political, social, religious, and other minorities. Take that freedom away and ‘dissident expression’ stands particularly vulnerable to marginalization or outright ‘suppression by the majority,’ leaving all of society poorer for it."

Broader Implications for Crisis Pregnancy Centers

Wednesday’s decision marks the second major Supreme Court victory for the crisis pregnancy center (CPC) industry in recent years. In 2018, the court blocked a California law requiring CPCs to inform patients about state-funded family-planning services, including abortion.

Crisis pregnancy centers are faith-based organizations whose stated mission is to deter women from having abortions. They typically offer free services such as pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, baby clothes, and diapers. However, investigations and reports have documented a history of misinformation and deception used to dissuade abortion seekers from terminating pregnancies.

First Choice, which has served more than 36,000 clients in New Jersey since its founding in 1985, created separate websites for donors and the general public, tailoring its anti-abortion messaging accordingly.

"Strip away the ability of individuals to work together free from governmental oversight and intrusion, and the freedom to associate may become no freedom at all."

The Legal Question at Hand

The Supreme Court’s decision addressed a narrow procedural question: Should First Choice be permitted to challenge New Jersey’s subpoena directly in federal court, or must it first seek relief in state courts?

New Jersey argued that the long-standing procedure for enforcing or challenging a subpoena requires parties to first seek relief in state court before appealing to federal court. However, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the conservative legal group representing First Choice, accused Platkin of "selectively targeting the nonprofit based on its religious speech and pro-life views."

According to ADF, the subpoena’s implications were so severe that First Choice should be allowed to seek immediate relief in federal court rather than exhausting state remedies.