Donor privacy subpoenas
First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Davenport
In brief
First Choice may continue its federal constitutional challenge to New Jersey's donor-information subpoena because it showed a present First Amendment injury.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 9-0 · April 29, 2026 · Opinion by Justice Gorsuch
- What it’s about
- The Court unanimously ruled for First Choice, holding that New Jersey’s subpoena seeking the pregnancy center’s donor information caused an immediate injury to its First Amendment right of association.
- Who it affects
- Organizations facing government demands for donor information may be able to seek federal court review when the demand reasonably chills their members or supporters.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
Because the subpoena could reasonably chill donors and the organization’s associational activities, First Choice had standing to challenge it in federal court before complying with it or facing enforcement.
The decision addresses when government investigations can create an immediate First Amendment injury for groups whose donors or supporters may be identified.
Question presented
When the recipient of a state investigatory subpoena demonstrates an objectively reasonable chill of its First Amendment rights, does a federal court lack jurisdiction to hear the case because those constitutional claims must first be resolved in state court?
What the Court decided
The vote
From the opinions
““First Choice has established a present injury to its First Amendment associational rights sufficient to confer Article III standing.””
What's next
The case returns to the lower courts. They must consider First Choice's remaining federal constitutional claims consistent with the Supreme Court's decision.
Why it matters
For example, a faith-based pregnancy center can pursue its constitutional claims without first having them resolved in state court.
Docket activity
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
Show 7 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
Opinion added: Opinion of the Court - NG
Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Platkin
Argued. For petitioner: Erin M. Hawley, Washington, D. C.; and Vivek Suri, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: Sundeep Iyer, Chief Counsel to the Attorney General, Trenton, N. J.
More questions
- What did the Supreme Court rule in First Choice Women's Resource Centers?
- The Court unanimously ruled that First Choice showed a present First Amendment injury and could pursue its federal case. It reversed the lower court.
- Who is affected by the First Choice decision?
- Organizations facing government requests for donor information may seek federal review if the request reasonably chills association. Donors and supporters may also be affected.
- What happens next in First Choice Women's Resource Centers?
- The case goes back to the lower courts. They will address First Choice's remaining constitutional challenges to the New Jersey investigation and subpoena.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.