The Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously ruled that a crisis pregnancy center can challenge a state investigation that seeks to obtain its donors’ information.
Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion for the court, siding with the faith-based pregnancy centers, saying they can federally challenge a subpoena from New Jersey seeking a list of its donors.
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers claimed the request from New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin was part of an intimidation campaign and chilled the organization’s First Amendment rights.
“This case presents a narrow question. We are not asked to decide the merits of First Choice’s federal lawsuit, only whether it may proceed,” Gorsuch wrote.
The justices were deciding whether federal courts can rule on the organization’s claim that Platkin’s demand for information goes against the group’s First Amendment rights, or if they should litigate it instead at the state level. The ruling Wednesday paves the way for the group to take Platkin to court at the federal level.
The state first issued subpoenas to First Choice in 2023 to obtain information about who is donating to the group, among other information. Platkin said the state required nonprofits to disclose who their donors were, as well as other information about the donors.
First Choice filed a civil rights claim in federal court, arguing that the state was discouraging it from using its First Amendment rights and that the subpoena will have a chilling effect by deterring donors from contributing in the future if their information is available to the public.
Should donor lists be private?
Debates over donor privacy date back to the 1950s and were established in the court’s landmark NAACP v. Alabama case, which said if the NAACP had to hand the state its membership lists it would violate the members’ rights to be associated with the group and be a deterrent, or a chilling, on current or future members.
In the past, the chilling effect was more focused on left-leaning organizations looking to protect their donors or members. Over time, it’s flipped as many right-leaning organizations are now defending themselves against providing information to states.
In regard to First Choice, a U.S. district judge said the case wasn’t ready for federal review since a state court is the one that has the power to overturn a subpoena from the state government. The case landed before a U.S. Court of Appeals, which upheld the district judge’s opinion, prompting First Choice to bring the case to the high court.
First Choice has leaned heavily on the precedent set in NAACP v. Alabama, arguing that the chilling effect is present in the case. The attorney representing the state faced tough questioning from the justices, including Gorsuch, who drilled down on the state’s argument being nit-picky over a verb tense in First Choice’s argument.
The unanimous ruling Wednesday pointed to the justices’ decision to maintain the precedent in the NAACP case and protect the rights of donors and members in groups from being made public and monitored by the state.
“Since NAACP v. Alabama, we have faced many cases along similar lines,” Gorsuch said. “And in one case after another we have subjected those demands to heightened First Amendment scrutiny.”
Gorsuch argued that against a backdrop of heightened First Amendment scrutiny, the answer before the justices “all but answers itself.” He argued that Platkin’s argument “falls short” and said a request for donor information is “enough to discourage reasonable individuals from associating with a group” and expressing “dissident views.”
“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. Disputing none of these precedents but seeking ways around them, the Attorney General has offered a variety of arguments,” Gorsuch concluded. “Accordingly, the judgment of the Third Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”