The Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision Wednesday siding with First Choice Women's Resource Centers, a group of five Christian-based pregnancy centers in New Jersey that challenged the state attorney general's investigation into their operations. All nine justices agreed the centers could take their First Amendment challenge to federal court, a sharp rebuke to a state probe that sought private donor lists from a pro-life ministry without a single complaint on file.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the Court, left little ambiguity about how the justices viewed the state's demand for donor information. The ruling found that New Jersey's investigation violated the centers' constitutional rights to free speech and association, and that none of the attorney general's arguments to avoid that conclusion held up.
The decision is procedural in one sense: it opens the door for First Choice to sue in federal court rather than settling the underlying merits of the state's fraud allegations. But the language of the opinion, and the fact that not a single justice dissented, sends a message that goes well beyond procedure. When a government demands the names of people who donate to a cause it dislikes, the Constitution has something to say about it.
The case traces back to a subpoena issued by then-Attorney General Matt Platkin, a Democrat, who launched an investigation into whether First Choice misled donors and the public about steering women away from abortions. Platkin contended the facilities presented consumer fraud concerns and that the state had broad authority to investigate. The Washington Examiner reported that the subpoena, issued in 2023, sought records including the names of most donors to the pregnancy center.
First Choice operates five facilities in New Jersey that provide pre-natal services, parenting classes, free ultrasounds, baby clothes, and other support, to women facing unplanned pregnancies. The centers have operated for four decades, sustained by private donors.
But what the state characterized as a consumer fraud inquiry, the centers saw as something else entirely: a politically motivated fishing expedition designed to intimidate their supporters and cripple their operations. First Choice Executive Director Aimee Huber told Fox News Digital ahead of oral arguments last fall, speaking from one of the counseling centers in New Brunswick:
"I think it's important to realize that there have been no complaints that have been cited by the attorney general against First Choice, not one. So, when we received the subpoena, it was clearly a fishing expedition. There were no complaints by donors or clients."
No complaints from donors. No complaints from clients. Yet the state demanded the names of the people keeping the ministry afloat. That is the kind of government conduct the First Amendment was written to prevent.
Justice Gorsuch's opinion cut straight to the constitutional problem. He wrote that the Court has long recognized the danger of compelled disclosure of private associations, and that New Jersey's subpoena fell squarely within that line of precedent. As the New York Post reported, Gorsuch stated for the unanimous Court:
"An official demand for private donor information is enough to discourage reasonable individuals from associating with a group. It is enough to discourage groups from expressing dissident views."
He added:
"Over and again, we have held those demands burden the exercise of First Amendment rights."
The opinion then addressed the attorney general's attempts to sidestep those precedents directly. Gorsuch was blunt in his assessment of the state's legal arguments:
"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."
That is not the language of a Court that found the question close. The justices, all nine of them, across the ideological spectrum, concluded that the state's rationale could not overcome the well-established principle that government demands for donor lists chill constitutionally protected association. The Supreme Court has been active this term on a range of high-profile cases, including a recent 6-3 ruling siding with an Army veteran injured by a Taliban bomber.
One of the more telling details in this case is that the American Civil Liberties Union, not typically aligned with pro-life organizations, supported First Choice's constitutional concerns about the subpoena. Newsmax reported that the ACLU backed the argument that compelled disclosure of donor information can chill free speech and association, regardless of the cause involved.
When even the ACLU tells a blue-state attorney general that his investigation raises First Amendment red flags, it is worth asking what the real purpose of that investigation was.
Alliance Defending Freedom counsel Erin Hawley, who presented First Choice's case during oral arguments last fall, called the decision a "resounding victory." She framed the state's conduct in direct terms:
"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."
Hawley added that ADF lawyers look forward to presenting First Choice's case in federal court if the current attorney general continues the fight. The Court's docket this term has drawn considerable attention, with justices also weighing in on cases involving federal pesticide law and the Monsanto Roundup litigation.
Current New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport, who inherited the case from Platkin, moved quickly to downplay the ruling. In a statement provided to Fox News Digital, Davenport characterized the decision as narrow:
"Today's procedural decision holds only that First Choice can pursue its challenge to our subpoena, not that its challenge should prevail."
She continued:
"New Jersey law makes clear that nonprofits cannot deceive or defraud New Jerseyans.... We look forward to defending our subpoena in court. We will continue to enforce our fraud laws without fear or favor."
Davenport is technically correct that the ruling does not resolve the underlying merits. The Associated Press noted that the decision allows the pregnancy center's legal challenge to proceed but does not end New Jersey's investigation outright. The case now returns to federal court, where First Choice will have the opportunity to challenge the constitutionality of the subpoena on its merits.
But Davenport's framing glosses over what the Court actually said. Nine justices agreed that the demand for donor information was sufficient to establish a present First Amendment injury. That is not a technicality. It is a finding that the state's conduct already caused constitutional harm, before any federal court even weighed the underlying facts.
Huber, the First Choice executive director, put it more plainly. As the Washington Examiner reported, she said: "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 facts of this case follow a pattern that conservatives have watched unfold across blue states for years. A state official with ideological objections to a lawful organization uses the machinery of government, subpoenas, investigations, regulatory pressure, to burden that organization's operations and frighten its supporters. The target is not fraud. The target is the mission.
First Choice argued that the probe rattled donors. That is precisely what compelled disclosure does. When a state demands to know who gave money to a pro-life pregnancy center, donors face the prospect of being identified, contacted, or pressured by a government that has already signaled its hostility to the cause. The chilling effect is not hypothetical. It is the point.
The Supreme Court has been at the center of intense institutional scrutiny in recent months, including after confidential internal memos leaked to the New York Times. But on this question, the justices spoke with one voice.
Platkin launched this investigation without a single cited complaint from a donor or a client. He sought the names of the people who fund a ministry that provides free ultrasounds and baby clothes to women in need. And when First Choice pushed back, the state argued it should not even be allowed to make its case in federal court.
The Supreme Court disagreed, unanimously. The justices have also been active on redistricting and election law matters this term, including a decision that struck down Louisiana's race-based House map.
The case now heads to federal court, where First Choice will have the chance to challenge the subpoena on the merits. Davenport has signaled she intends to defend the state's position. Hawley and ADF have said they are ready.
The merits fight will matter. But the unanimous ruling already established the constitutional baseline: demanding donor lists from organizations the government disfavors is not a neutral act. It is a burden on the First Amendment. And the government cannot dodge judicial review by calling it a routine fraud investigation.
For the women who walk into First Choice's five facilities looking for help, and for the donors who have sustained that work for four decades, the ruling means something concrete. The state cannot quietly dismantle a pro-life ministry by scaring away its supporters, not without answering to a federal judge first.
When all nine justices agree that a blue-state attorney general crossed the line, the problem was never about fraud. It was about viewpoint.
