‘Resounding victory’: Unanimous Supreme Court puts block in front of New Jersey’s anti-life agenda

A unanimous Supreme Court has put a block in front of an anti-life scheme by the state of New Jersey that involves demands from authorities for pro-life centers to provide to pro-abortion activists in state government the names, phone numbers, addresses and places of employment of many of their donors.

The ruling found that such a demand implicates the First Amendment by chilling the pregnancy centers’ speech and association rights.

The fight was on behalf of First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, which includes five faith-based pregnancy centers in the state.

State Attorney General Matthew Platkin had demanded a coercive subpoena, insisting on full access to the centers’ private information.

“In this resounding victory, the Supreme Court held to its long-standing precedent of recognizing that the Constitution protects First Choice and its donors from demands by a hostile state official to disclose donor identities and contact information,” said lawyer, Erin Hawley, of the ADF, which represented the centers.

“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. Should the Attorney General continue these efforts on remand, we look forward to presenting First Choice’s case in federal court.”

Aimee Huber, an executive with First Choice, said, “For more than two years, Attorney General Platkin targeted First Choice with aggressive demands for sensitive documents, including our donors’ identities. 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 unanimous court ruling explained, “An official demand for private donor information is enough to discourage reasonable individuals from associating with a group. … From its allegations and declarations, and given our many and longstanding precedents in the area and reasonable inferences about third party behavior, First Choice has established that the Attorney General’s demand for private donor information injures the group’s First Amendment associational rights.”

A lower court had banned First Choice from presenting its constitutional claims in federal court, and the decision means the case moves back down the ladder in the court system for further review in alignment with the Supreme Court’s decision.

The ruling explained First Choice, “Believing that life begins at conception, the group does not provide abortions or refer clients to others for abortions. In 2022, New Jersey’s Attorney General established a ‘Reproductive Rights Strike Force’ that issued a consumer alert accusing groups like First Choice of seeking to prevent people from accessing reproductive health care by providing false or misleading abortion in formation.”

The state served a subpoena on First Choice, demanding a wide range of confidential information and details.

“Effectively, that demand required First Choice to provide personal information about donors who gave through two other websites, through the group’s various social media pages, by mail, in person, or by any other means. The subpoena warned twice that failure to comply may render the group liable for contempt of court and other penalties,” the ruling explained.

First Choice responded by suing to halt Platkin’s political agenda.

First Choice alleged its in ability to guarantee its donors’ anonymity in the face of the Platkin’s demands injured the group by discouraging donors from as sociating with it.

A district court denied First Choice’s motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the complaint, and the 3rd Circuit affirmed.

But, the ruling pointed out, “Here, the Attorney General’s subpoena has caused First Choice to suffer an ongoing injury to its First Amendment rights. The First Amendment guarantees all Americans the rights to speak, worship, publish, assemble, and petition their government freely. Each of these rights necessarily carries with it ‘a corresponding right to associate with others.’ Associational rights carry special significance for political, social, religious, and other minorities, protecting ‘dissident expression’ from marginalization or outright ‘suppression by the majority.'”

The decision noted a long-held precedent that “compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may constitute as effective a restraint on freedom of association” as more direct forms of suppression, and thus has repeatedly subjected demands for private donor or member information to heightened First Amendment scrutiny.

“By restricting how First Choice may interact privately with its donors, the Attorney General’s subpoena burdened First Choice’s associational rights. Were the rule otherwise, the government could channel the ability of disfavored groups to associate through narrow and state-preferred forms and achieve exactly what the First Amendment forbids,” the decision said.

WATCH: A refresh on what the stakes were in First Choice v. Platkin.

The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of First Choice this morning. pic.twitter.com/i4ywjspa6e

— Alliance Defending Freedom (@ADFLegal) April 29, 2026

BREAKING: In a UNANIMOUS decision, this morning the #SCOTUS delivered a major victory for life and freedom of speech in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport.

Pregnancy centers have faced targeted harassment from government officials over the fact that they… pic.twitter.com/Hv8XGjWsVf

— SBA Pro-Life America (@sbaprolife) April 29, 2026