First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a New Jersey pro-life nonprofit can sue in federal court right away to challenge a state attorney general's subpoena for its donors' names, addresses, and employers — it does not have to wait for a court to force compliance first.
The decision establishes that simply receiving a government demand for donor records is itself a constitutional injury, because the demand chills donors from giving and pressures organizations to soften their advocacy — implications that extend to advocacy groups of every political stripe.
“A government that takes three limbs but spares the last imposes an injury all the same.”
The Court's response to the argument that exempting one donation website from the subpoena meant First Choice suffered no constitutional injury.
How it got here: A federal district court dismissed First Choice's lawsuit for lack of standing; the Third Circuit affirmed; First Choice petitioned the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.
The Case in Depth
What happened
First Choice Women's Resource Centers is a New Jersey religious nonprofit that has counseled pregnant women since 1985 but does not provide or refer for abortions. In 2022, New Jersey's attorney general launched a "Reproductive Rights Strike Force" that accused groups like First Choice of misleading clients about abortion access. In 2023, the attorney general served First Choice a subpoena demanding the names, addresses, phone numbers, and employers of donors who gave by almost any means — in person, by mail, through social media, or online — covering donations from January 2021 onward.
The question before the Court
Can a nonprofit organization immediately challenge in federal court a state attorney general's demand for its donors' personal information, without first waiting for a court to order the group to comply?
The Court's answer
Yes — a nonprofit organization can go straight to federal court to challenge a government subpoena for its donors' private records, without first waiting for a court to order compliance.
The Court held that issuing such a subpoena causes an immediate, ongoing constitutional injury: it chills donors from giving and pressures the organization to soften its advocacy to avoid government scrutiny. That injury is concrete enough to give federal courts authority to hear the case — it begins the moment the demand is made and lasts as long as the subpoena remains outstanding. The case now returns to the lower courts to decide whether the attorney general's subpoena actually violated the First Amendment.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Charities, religious organizations, and advocacy groups across the political spectrum can now go straight to federal court when a government official demands their donor lists — without first waiting for a court to force compliance. That makes it faster and less costly to protect donor privacy and fight government pressure, and it removes the risk that litigating in state court first could permanently bar a federal constitutional claim.
What changes now
The case returns to the lower courts to decide the actual merits — whether the attorney general's subpoena violated First Choice's First Amendment rights and whether it can survive heightened constitutional scrutiny. The Supreme Court's ruling only establishes that First Choice has the right to bring the lawsuit; it does not decide who ultimately wins. Parallel state court proceedings over the subpoena continue alongside the federal case.
What this does not decide
The Court resolved only whether First Choice can bring this lawsuit — not whether the subpoena actually violated the First Amendment. The merits, including whether New Jersey's demand can survive heightened constitutional scrutiny, remain open for the lower courts to decide. The Court also did not reach First Choice's separate argument based on its right to solicit charitable donations.
Concurrences and dissents
How the Justices voted
Majority (1). Justice Gorsuch (author).
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The First Amendment protects not just speech and religion but also the freedom to associate — to work collectively with others toward shared goals. Courts have long held that government demands for a group's private member or donor lists burden this right, because they deter people from contributing to disfavored organizations as effectively as a direct ban on association.
- To sue in federal court, a plaintiff must show 'injury in fact' — a concrete, present or imminent harm. The Court explained that injury can arise from a burden on constitutional rights, not just tangible losses. Prior cases, including NAACP v. Alabama (1958) and Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (AFP, 2021), establish that government demands for donor records 'inevitably' deter First Amendment activity from the moment they are issued.
- The attorney general argued his subpoena was 'non-self-executing' — having no legal force unless a court later ordered compliance — so it caused no present injury. The Court rejected this: even if enforcement depended on future court action, the subpoena's command and threat of contempt and other penalties would make reasonable donors hesitate to give, and would pressure the organization to self-censor knowing it stood in the government's crosshairs.
- The attorney general also argued that carving out one donation website from the disclosure demand meant First Choice suffered no injury. The Court rejected this too. The constitutional question is not how severely the government burdened associational rights but whether it burdened them at all — restricting protected association to only one government-approved channel would let the government achieve exactly what the First Amendment forbids while evading any legal challenge.
- Finally, the Court rejected the argument that a promised protective order keeping donor records confidential would cure any injury. Building on AFP, the Court held that official demands for donor records discourage association and dissent even when no public disclosure is threatened — the mere fact that the government holds the information is enough to chill donors and suppress dissident expression.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson (357 U. S. 449)
Foundational rule that government demands for private membership or donor lists burden free association remains controlling law.
Reaffirms Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (594 U. S. 595)
2021 ruling that donor-disclosure demands chill First Amendment rights even when confidentiality is promised is reaffirmed and extended.
Distinguishes Laird v. Tatum (408 U. S. 1)
That case involved only a subjective, self-imposed chill from a general program; here the government directly targeted and commanded First Choice.
Distinguishes Reisman v. Caplin (375 U. S. 440)
That equity-practice ruling requiring pre-enforcement waiting does not apply when a plaintiff suffers ongoing constitutional injury from the subpoena itself.