Supreme Court Rules Against Democrats Trying To Unmask Crisis Pregnancy Center Donors

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of religious pregnancy centers Wednesday and decided that courts can rule against subpoenas targeting donors, even if those subpoenas are not enforced.

Former Democratic New Jersey Attorney General (AG) Matthew Platkin issued a subpoena against the First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc., a nonprofit organization that has offered resources to pregnant women in the state since 1985.

In 2022, Platkin’s “Reproductive Rights Strike Force” issued a consumer alert accusing First Choice, among other organizations, of trying to prevent women from receiving “reproductive health care by providing false or misleading abortion information,” the opinion said. (RELATED: Supreme Court Issues Major Ruling On Voting Rights Act)

First Choice believes life starts at conception, and it does not provide abortions or refer clients to other groups for abortions, the opinion stated.

Platkin allegedly served a subpoena to First Choice, demanding that it produce 28 different types of documents — including the personal information of donors who contributed “by any means other than through one specific webpage” — adding that failure to comply could result in penalties including contempt of court, according to the opinion.

First Choice Executive Director Aimee Huber said in a statement to the Daily Caller that Platkin’s demands were aggressive. She told the Caller that 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.”

Citing the First Amendment, First Choice argued the subpoena’s demand for donors’ information was unconstitutional, and that potential donors could have been discouraged from associating with First Choice, the opinion said.

WIN for free speech and pro-life pregnancy centers at SCOTUS! 🏛️ pic.twitter.com/L6FkAzqaKx

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

The court ruled in favor of First Choice and argued that demanding private donor information violated “protected First Amendment associational rights even when those demands contemplate disclosure only to government officials and not ‘the general public,’” the opinion said.

“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,” Huber added.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) counsel Erin Hawley, who argued the case in December, referred to the decision as a resounding victory in the statement obtained by the Caller. She asserted that the court maintained its precedent in deciding to protect the First Amendment rights of First Choice and its donors.

“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,” Hawley said. “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.”

The opinion also shares a “more general principle” confirming that courts may make “commonsense inferences” regarding the harm of subpoenas targeting First Amendment activity. This could still apply even if a court never enforces a subpoena. The opinion quoted previous briefs, which said an unenforced subpoena would still “give the target organization’s members and supporters a very good reason to abandon the cause.”

New Jersey’s current AG Jennifer Davenport told the Caller that Wednesday’s decision only holds that First Choice can pursue a challenge to the subpoena, but not that the subpoena will not hold.

“New Jersey law makes clear that nonprofits cannot deceive or defraud New Jerseyans, and we regularly exercise our traditional investigative authority to ensure they are not doing so — regardless of the particular services they provide,” Davenport said. “We look forward to defending our subpoena in court. We will continue to enforce our fraud laws without fear or favor.”