The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of an anti-abortion clinic Tuesday, not over its practices, but whether it could challenge state prosecutors seeking personal details on its donors.
In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, an appointee of President Donald Trump, the court overturned lower court decisions against First Choice Women’s Resource Centers in New Jersey, warning that those rulings put First Amendment rights at risk.
“An injury in fact arises when a defendant burdens a plaintiff’s constitutional rights, and government demands for a charity’s private donor information have just that effect,” Gorsuch wrote.
The case, originally challenging former New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin’s subpoena for donor records, could lower the barrier for other nonprofits, advocacy groups, and religious organizations to challenge subpoenas seeking donors’ personal information.
What Was This Case About?
The Supreme Court’s decision in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport, Attorney General of New Jersey, was not about abortion itself, or whether New Jersey lawfully subpoenaed donor records. Instead, the case answers a narrower but important question: Can a nonprofit immediately challenge a state subpoena in federal court, or must it wait until a state court forces compliance?
At the center of the case was a subpoena issued by New Jersey’s attorney general demanding the names, addresses, phone numbers, and workplaces of most donors to First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a religious nonprofit that opposes abortion. The state said it wanted to investigate whether donors had been misled about the group’s services.
Lower courts had dismissed the organization’s lawsuit, ruling that it lacked standing because it had not yet been ordered to comply with the subpoena.
The Supreme Court overturned those rulings, with Gorsuch writing that the First Amendment protected not just free speech but also the right to associate privately, meaning that the personal details of those associated with a nonprofit were protected by the amendment.
Those First Amendment rights were injured when a demand for those details was made, whether or not it was enforced, the court found.
Clinic Reacts to Ruling
“For more than two years, Attorney General Platkin targeted First Choice with aggressive demands for sensitive documents, including our donors’ identities,” Aimee Huber, First Choice Executive Director, told Newsweek in a statement. “He has gone to great lengths to frustrate the important work we do—work that has made a tangible, life-saving difference for tens of thousands of New Jersey women and their children.
“As the Supreme Court recognized, the government can’t evade federal court review when it harasses those who support pro-life ministries just because it disagrees with their message and their mission.”
The lead counsel on the case, Erin Hawley, added that the ruling affirmed First Amendment protections from “demands by a hostile state official.”
First Choice, she said, is an organization providing parenting classes, free ultrasounds, baby clothes, and other resources to its community, but it had been targeted by the state attorney general for its “pro-life views.”
“That is blatantly unconstitutional,” Hawley told Newsweek in a statement. “Should the Attorney General continue these efforts on remand, we look forward to presenting First Choice’s case in federal court.”
New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport told Newsweek in a statement that the ruling only meant First Choice could challenge the subpoena, “not that its challenge should prevail.”
“New Jersey law makes clear that nonprofits cannot deceive or defraud New Jerseyans, and we regularly exercise our traditional investigative authority to ensure they are not doing so — regardless of the particular services they provide,” Davenport said. “We look forward to defending our subpoena in court. We will continue to enforce our fraud laws without fear or favor.”
Who Does the Ruling Apply to?
Although this case involved an anti-abortion organization, Gorsuch explicitly cited briefs from groups across the political spectrum, including civil liberties organizations, recognizing the same chilling risks.
“We’re grateful that the Court has recognized that even before they’re enforced, law enforcement subpoenas seeking sensitive donor information can scare away the supporters that are essential to any nonprofit’s work,” Brian Hauss, deputy project director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, said in a press release.
“At a time when government officials throughout the country abuse regulatory powers to punish their ideological opponents, federal courts must remain a venue in which people can vindicate their First Amendment rights.”
The ruling also limits state investigative powers, because similar subpoenas could now be challenged the moment they are received.
Related Articles
