The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major victory for a Christian pregnancy center attempting to resist a state demand for its donor records. In a unanimous ruling, the justices of the high court ruled that First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, an ECFA member, had been injured by a subpoena from the State of New Jersey and the ministry could press its case in federal court.

New Jersey’s battle with First Choice began in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade.  The state attorney general’s “Reproductive Rights Strike Force” led the publishing of a consumer alert about crisis pregnancy centers that, according to the state, “are organizations that seek to prevent individuals from accessing abortion care, sometimes by providing false or misleading information about the safety and legality of abortion.” In that context, the state attorney general authorized a sweeping subpoena to First Choice demanding sensitive and confidential documents, including mounds of identifying information about the ministry’s donors.

First Choice, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), resisted this subpoena and had to escalate its case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court because lower courts had said it was not ripe for federal review. Thankfully, all nine justices of the nation’s highest court moved to rectify this mistake.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the court, found New Jersey’s attempts to dismiss First Choice’s constitutional injury unconvincing. Citing past rulings upholding freedom of association rights, including the NAACP’s hallmark victory over Alabama in 1958 and the more recent 2021 Americans for Prosperity Foundation case against the donor disclosure demands of California, he said “the question before us all but answers itself.”

“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,” wrote Gorsuch. “First Choice has established that the Attorney General’s demand for private donor information injures the group’s First Amendment associational rights.”

Among the counter-arguments Gorsuch analyzed and rejected in his ruling was New Jersey’s suggestion that a forthcoming protective order would ensure the confidentiality of any donor records turned over by First Choice. Gorsuch highlighted that no such order was in place and, even if it was, a damaging leak was possible. He also emphasized, “even taken on its own terms, this response falls short.”

“An official demand for private donor information is enough to discourage reasonable individuals from associating with a group,” Gorsuch stated. “It is enough to discourage groups from expressing dissident views.”

He added, “Just ask yourself, would it have been an answer in NAACP v. Alabama if the State’s Attorney General promised to keep the NAACP’s membership rolls to himself?”

Notably, one day after the high court delivered this unanimous rebuff, New Jersey’s attorney general went back to state court asking it to rule on the enforceability of the subpoena that triggered this saga. ADF attorney Erin Hawley suggested this was an attempt “to preempt the federal court’s review” and “disregards the Supreme Court’s ruling.” She also said it “underscores the stark reality of this case.”

“For more than two years, New Jersey state officials have targeted First Choice simply because they dislike its pro-life views,” said Hawley. “The Supreme Court sent a clear message: First Choice is entitled to its day in federal court.”

The ECFA team is monitoring this court battle and praying for victory for First Choice’s First Amendment freedoms.