In an important First Amendment victory, the Supreme Court just ruled unanimously last week that state officials who harass their ideological opponents by demanding private donor information will be held accountable in federal court.

My law firm, Alliance Defending Freedom, had the privilege of representing First Choice Women’s Resource Centers before the high court. For more than two years then-New Jersey attorney general Matthew Platkin, targeted First Choice, a collection of five faith-based pregnancy centers in the state. Without any evidence of wrongdoing, he issued a baseless, coercive subpoena demanding that the ministry disclose the names, phone numbers, addresses, and places of employment of many of its donors, in addition to up to 10 years of its internal confidential documents.

The state of New Jersey demanded this information even though the Supreme Court had already admonished California’s attorney general for requiring the disclosure of nonprofit donor identities just five years ago. Such a requirement violates the First Amendment and the protected right to anonymous association.

In its unanimous ruling, the court recognized that such a demand runs afoul of the First Amendment by chilling the pregnancy centers’ and individuals’ freedom to privately donate to the nonprofit of their choice without fear of government harassment.

“By restricting how First Choice may interact privately with its donors, the attorney general’s subpoena burdened First Choice’s associational rights,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote.

Now, First Choice will be able to seek justice in federal court, which will weigh whether to halt enforcement of the state’s unconstitutional and unreasonable subpoena against the ministry.

While the legal technicalities of this case are nuanced and the ultimate outcome will be determined later, the Supreme Court’s ruling is far-reaching. Groups as diverse as tech giants, oil and gas companies, gun manufacturers, media groups, and immigrant advocacy organizations have all faced invasive demands from state officials.

That said, our firm has stayed quite busy defending pro-life pregnancy centers in particular. From Washington state to Vermont, and from California to New York, state officials have unlawfully targeted pregnancy centers. In some instances, they are going after confidential donor data; in other cases, they are trying to make it illegal to tell a woman who takes the first drug in a two-abortion-drug regimen that it is possible to reverse the process and save her baby.

In all instances, the government is violating the nonprofits’ constitutionally protected freedom to operate in accordance with their religious and moral convictions, as well as their freedoms of speech and association.

In New Jersey, the attorney general didn’t even try to hide it. He launched an all-out campaign to shut down First Choice, creating a pro-abortion “Strike Force” and openly colluding with Planned Parenthood to issue a “consumer alert” against the pregnancy centers.

What is so threatening about this nonprofit? For Platkin, it was the mere fact that they do not provide abortions. First Choice offers its community life-affirming parenting classes, ultrasounds, baby clothes, food, and more — all completely free of charge.

Some argue for abortion as an economic necessity. One would expect them at least to sympathize with First Choice’s efforts to make parenting more affordable for its clients. Yet because of First Choice’s pro-life views, Platkin went to great lengths to frustrate the important work it does of giving life-saving support for scores of New Jersey women and their children.

Indeed, Platkin made it his mission to see First Choice’s doors shuttered just because he disagreed with their mission and preferred forcing his own pro-abortion agenda on New Jerseyans.

Thankfully, that hasn’t happened. The Supreme Court rightly stepped in and affirmed that the Constitution protects First Choice from such blatant overreach.

May this serve as a lesson to any state official who wants to shut down nonprofits simply because of their religious or moral beliefs. New Jersey’s targeting of First Choice was never about protecting consumers — it aimed only to protect the abortion industry’s monopoly on advertising to and serving women facing unplanned pregnancies. It was really all about taking choices away.

Hostile state actors should not be able to harass ideological opponents and go after private donor information without accountability. Thankfully, First Choice will now get its day in federal court. Everyone deserves to support causes they love without having their private information turned over to government officials who may use it against them.

Erik Baptist is senior counsel and director of the Center for Life with Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents First Choice Women’s Resource Centers.

Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.