In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a New Jersey pregnancy resource center, First Choice Women’s Resource Center, can proceed with bringing a lawsuit against a New Jersey state investigation of its donors to federal courts.
The 22-page opinion from Justice Gorsuch in First Choice Women’s Resource Center v. Davenport (formerly First Choice Women’s Resource Center v. Platkin) finds that New Jersey’s subpoena for personal information of First Choice’s donors imminently threatens to violate the First Amendment’s right to freedom of association, which entitles First Choice with the right to challenge the subpoena before it is enforced. This is a victory for pro-life organizations and other religious ministries in hostile states that want to undermine their important work.
In August 2025, the ERLC joined other pro-life groups in filing an amicus brief, arguing for First Choice and highlighting the detrimental ramifications if religious organizations do not have access to federal courts when states infringe on constitutionally protected rights.
This is a victory for pro-life organizations and other religious ministries in hostile states that want to undermine their important work.
What is the New Jersey pregnancy resource center case about?
Background
In 2023, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a pro-life network of pregnancy centers in New Jersey was investigated by the state for allegedly misleading clients medically and about its mission. New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin (now Jennifer Davenport) issued a subpoena seeking internal documents related to advertising, substantiation for medical claims, identities of donors, and licensing of professionals.
New Jersey argued that First Choice was fraudulently misleading donors through a specific donation website by featuring pictures of people holding babies, which could lead some to think First Choice offers abortions. First Choice objected to the subpoena because it violated its constitutional rights to protect its donors’ privacy and freedom of association under the First Amendment.
Lower court rulings
New Jersey sought compulsion to comply with the subpoena in state courts, which denied First Choice’s efforts to quash the subpoena. However, instead of enforcing the subpoena, the state court ordered the parties to negotiate the subpoena’s scope, and did not demand First Choice turn over any documents immediately. In response, First Choice went to federal court arguing the subpoena violated their First Amendment rights.
However, the district court twice dismissed the case arguing the issues were not “ripe,” or ready, for federal courts to resolve since First Choice had not yet been compelled to comply and thus, no actual harm had been done. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling to not yet resolve the case until everything had played out at the state level. As a result, First Choice petitioned the Supreme Court to review.
The question
When a state investigatory subpoena potentially violates First Amendment rights, may the subpoena recipient challenge the Constitutional violation in federal court or must they wait until the injury has occurred before they have standing in federal court?
What did the court’s decision say about the New Jersey pregnancy resource center case?
Writing for the unanimous majority, Justice Gorsuch explains that the court agrees with First Choice and that it may bring its constitutional challenge to the subpoena to federal courts before the proceedings play out in state courts.
Gorsuch explains that in order to bring forward the lawsuit, known as “standing,” Article III of the Constitution requires that there is:
- Injury in fact
- Causation
- Redressability, or the ability of the court to actually fix the problem
First Choice’s claim centers on the “injury in fact,” which can be actual or imminent injury. The court found that “First Choice has established a present injury to its First Amendment associational rights” (10). While the state courts had not enforced the subpoena, First Choice faced imminent injury to its freedom of association, as donors may be reluctant to give financially if they knew their identity would be disclosed to hostile state authorities.
Gorsuch outlines three pieces of evidence corroborating First Choice’s claim of injury.
- First, the New Jersey Attorney General commanded First Choice to turn over donor information through the subpoena, in which “twice, the subpoena warned First Choice that ‘[f]ailure to comply with this Subpoena may render you liable for contempt of Court and such other penalties as are provided by law’” (10).
- Next, First Choice demonstrated the Attorney General’s publicly stated disdain for pro-life groups, calling them “extremists,” discouraging association with First Choice and threatening their ability to carry out their religious mission.
- Finally, First Choice provided unrebutted declarations from anonymous donors that they would have been less likely to donate if they knew their information would be given to the state.
Gorsuch explains, “All this is more than enough to establish injury in fact under our precedents. An injury in fact does not arise only when a defendant causes a tangible harm to a plaintiff, like a physical injury or monetary loss. It can also arise when a defendant burdens a plaintiff ’s constitutional rights” (11).
Agreeing with the arguments put forth in the ERLC-joined brief, along with others, the court finds that even an unenforced subpoena can intimidate supporters of the cause (13). “From its allegations and declarations, and given our many and longstanding precedents in the area and reasonable inferences about third party behavior,” Gorsuch states, “First Choice has established that the Attorney General’s demand for private donor information injures the group’s First Amendment associational rights” (13).
What’s next for the New Jersey pregnancy resource center?
This decision debunks the multipart argument of the New Jersey attorney general and reverses the decision of the Third Circuit, allowing First Choice to continue with federal court proceedings to argue that their First Amendment rights were, in fact, at stake. While this ruling does not permanently shut down the investigation, First Choice will now have the chance to argue to a federal judge that the state’s years-long string of demands were burdensome and harmful, intruding on their fundamental constitutional rights.
Why does this New Jersey pregnancy resource center case matter to Southern Baptists?
The pro-life convictions of Southern Baptists often lead to partnerships between our churches and local pregnancy resource centers, which offer critical care and compassion for families facing unexpected pregnancies. In the 2025 resolution “On Standing Against the Moral Evils and Medical Dangers of Chemical Abortion Pills,” Southern Baptists resolved to “commit ourselves to fostering a culture of life through the tangible support of pregnancy resource centers.”
Furthermore, religious liberty is a foundational conviction for Southern Baptists and a pillar of our Constitution. When hostile states attempt to investigate and intimidate religious groups, whether it be a church or a pregnancy resource center, there must be a fair means to assert a First Amendment defense. No government should be able to effectively minimize ministry work with threats of investigation harmful to a religious organization’s mission.
