New Jersey’s attack on donor privacy has sparked a crucial Supreme Court battle that could determine whether Americans can support controversial causes without fear of harassment and intimidation.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court will hear First Choice Resource Centers’ challenge to New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin’s subpoena demanding donor information.
- The case could establish significant precedent for donor privacy and free speech protections following the 2021 Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta ruling.
- New Jersey claims the subpoena is part of a consumer fraud investigation into alleged misrepresentation of services, but critics argue it’s targeting the center for its pro-life stance.
- Alliance Defending Freedom, representing First Choice, has previously won major Supreme Court cases protecting free speech rights of pro-life organizations.
- The case highlights growing concerns about potential harassment of donors to politically controversial causes if their identities are disclosed.
New Jersey’s Aggressive Push for Donor Information
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin has ignited a constitutional showdown by demanding the names and addresses of donors to First Choice Resource Centers, a pro-life ministry operating five locations throughout the state. The subpoena, issued under the state’s Consumer Fraud Act, claims the organization may be misleading donors and clients about the health services they provide. However, the request comes without evidence of any consumer complaints or actual damages, raising serious questions about the state’s motivations and the constitutional implications of forced donor disclosure.
The attorney general claims the subpoena is necessary to determine if donors were misled, but First Choice and their legal team view it as government overreach targeting a religious organization for its pro-life stance. The center offers free ultrasounds, parenting classes, baby clothes, and other support services to women facing unplanned pregnancies. With the Supreme Court agreeing to hear the case, the confrontation has national implications for religious liberty and free speech.
Constitutional Protections at Stake
First Choice Resource Centers is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a legal organization with an impressive track record defending religious liberty and free speech rights. ADF previously secured a major victory in 2018 when the Supreme Court struck down California’s law requiring crisis pregnancy centers to provide information about abortion services. That precedent-setting case established important protections for organizations with religious and moral objections to abortion.
“Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions. Freedom of speech secures freedom of thought and belief. This law imperils those liberties,” stated Justice Kennedy, regarding the California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care and Transparency Act Source.
The current case builds on the Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, which established that states cannot compel charitable organizations to disclose their major donors without a compelling state interest. First Choice argues that New Jersey’s subpoena directly threatens these constitutional protections and could chill protected speech by exposing donors to potential harassment and retaliation.
State Claims vs. Free Speech Concerns
Platkin defends his actions by arguing that “identifying those donors would allow the state to determine if they were ultimately misled.” However, critics point out that the state has shown no evidence of actual consumer complaints against First Choice. The Consumer Fraud Act prohibits knowing concealment or omission of material facts with intent to mislead the public, but the investigation appears to be fishing for violations rather than responding to documented problems.
“First Choice—a crisis pregnancy center operating in New Jersey—has for years refused to answer questions about their operations in New Jersey and the potential misrepresentations they have been making, including about reproductive healthcare,” said Platkin, in a statement. “We issued a lawful subpoena in November 2023 to ensure that First Choice was complying with all relevant state laws. Nonprofits, including crisis pregnancy centers, may not deceive or defraud residents in our State, and we may exercise our traditional investigative authority to ensure that they are not doing so—as we do to protect New Jerseyans from a range of harms.”
Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Erin Hawley has a different perspective on the state’s actions: “New Jersey’s attorney general is targeting First Choice — a ministry that provides parenting classes, free ultrasounds, baby clothes, and more to its community—simply because of its pro-life views. We are looking forward to presenting our case to the Supreme Court,” said President Trump.
Real Risks of Donor Disclosure
The case highlights legitimate concerns about potential harassment of donors to politically controversial causes if their identities become public. During California’s Proposition 8 campaign on same-sex marriage, donors who supported traditional marriage faced significant backlash when their names were disclosed. The New York Times reported that one supporter “received many confrontational e-mail messages … one signed message blasted him for supporting the measure and was copied to a dozen of his colleagues and supervisors at the university.”
In today’s increasingly polarized political climate, the risk of harassment, intimidation, and even violence against supporters of controversial causes has only increased. This makes the Supreme Court’s review of the case crucial for protecting Americans’ right to support causes they believe in without fear of retribution. The case also highlights the broader pattern of progressive state attorneys general using their investigative powers to target and potentially silence conservative and religious organizations.
Implications Beyond New Jersey
The Supreme Court’s decision will have far-reaching implications for donor privacy nationwide, especially for organizations involved in contentious issues like abortion, religious liberty, and traditional values. If the Court rules in favor of First Choice, it will strengthen constitutional protections for donor privacy and association rights. If it sides with New Jersey, state officials across the country could gain expanded power to demand donor information from organizations they disagree with politically.
For conservatives and people of faith, this case represents another battle in the ongoing struggle to preserve fundamental freedoms against government overreach. President Trump’s Supreme Court appointees have been instrumental in protecting religious liberty and free speech rights in recent years, making this case another potential landmark in restoring constitutional protections for all Americans regardless of their political or religious views.
