WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday, Dec. 2, 2025, over whether New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin may seek a broad set of donor records from First Choice Women's Resource Centers, a nonprofit that operates pregnancy resource centers across northern and central New Jersey.
The case raises core questions about donor privacy, the reach of state investigative power and where constitutional claims can be resolved. First Choice wants the dispute heard in federal court so it can press First Amendment and privacy objections; New Jersey says state courts are the proper forum for the inquiry. The outcome could affect future investigations of charities and how quickly organizations can obtain federal review of compelled-disclosure orders. For more on oversight of these issues, see our Justice Coverage.
Background
Platkin announced a review of crisis pregnancy centers in mid-2022 as part of an initiative he described as aimed at improving access to reproductive care after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. The attorney general has said some centers may mislead donors or clients about the services they provide.
In December 2022, Platkin posted on X that people seeking reproductive care should beware of crisis pregnancy centers. The subpoena to First Choice was issued within a year of that post, according to Fox News reporting cited by the parties in filings.
First Choice says it operates five centers and has provided services to more than 36,000 women over four decades. The nonprofit says it does not perform or refer for abortions and that it clearly communicates the services it offers prospective clients.
Details from officials and records
The subpoena seeks donor names, contact information and employment records for contributors to First Choice. New Jersey officials say those records are necessary to investigate whether donors were solicited under false pretenses or whether the centers made unsubstantiated medical claims, including statements about medication used in abortion care.
State lawyers told the Supreme Court that attorneys general are “the chief law enforcement officers of their States” and possess broad investigatory powers to pursue potential violations of state law. They also argued that state-court procedures could narrow the scope of any subpoena and protect sensitive information where appropriate.
First Choice has challenged the subpoena as overbroad and a threat to donor privacy and associational freedom. Its lawyers say the inquiry has chilled donations and disrupted operations. Dalton Nichols, a lawyer with Alliance Defending Freedom who represents First Choice, told the court the federal forum is important for resolving constitutional claims over compelled disclosure of donors.
- State objective: investigate potential consumer fraud and misleading fundraising claims, according to state filings.
- Nonprofit claim: subpoena is overbroad and infringes on associational privacy protected by the First Amendment.
- Immediate legal question: whether federal court or state court should adjudicate the constitutional challenge.
Reactions and next steps
First Choice executives say the subpoena has unsettled donors and increased legal and operational strain at their centers. The nonprofit emphasizes that most services offered are nonmedical counseling, material assistance and, at some locations, limited ultrasound services.
The attorney general's office has defended the inquiry as a lawful investigation into potential deception of donors and clients. State attorneys told the court that state-court procedures and protective orders could limit disclosure of sensitive records and that the state has a legitimate interest in policing consumer protection and health-related claims.
The Supreme Court will resolve a procedural but consequential question: whether the constitutional challenge can be heard in federal court now, or whether the dispute must proceed in New Jersey courts first. If the court allows federal jurisdiction, the case would proceed to the merits of the First Amendment and privacy claims in a federal forum. If not, the challenge would continue under New Jersey law, and any federal review would likely come later through appellate processes.
Legal context
Courts have long recognized that compelled disclosure of donor lists can chill associational activity. The Supreme Court decisions dating back to NAACP v. Alabama recognize a right to associational privacy in certain contexts. At the same time, state authorities have tools to investigate fraud and false advertising, and courts have historically allowed some compelled disclosures where the government shows a sufficient need and narrow tailoring.
The procedural dispute the justices are addressing sits at the intersection of those principles. Federal courts sometimes abstain from resolving constitutional claims when parallel state proceedings could address the same issues; state courts, in turn, can provide safeguards such as in camera review or protective orders. How the high court allocates initial forum choice affects how and when those safeguards are applied.
Analysis
The case underscores competing governance priorities: state attorneys general have a duty to investigate potential consumer fraud and protect public health, while constitutional protections can shield donors and advocacy groups from intrusive disclosure. A decision permitting federal courts to hear such claims early would make it easier for nonprofits to obtain federal constitutional review, potentially constraining state investigatory reach in sensitive cases.
Conversely, a ruling that federal courts should defer to state proceedings could preserve broader investigatory discretion for state law enforcement and funnel these disputes through state court rules and procedures that may provide case-specific protections. For policymakers and nonprofit leaders, the ruling will clarify the balance between accountability for alleged deceptive practices and the privacy interests that support robust civic engagement.
Beyond the immediate parties, the Supreme Court's decision will shape how donor privacy and investigatory authority intersect across the country, affecting charities, regulators and donors weighing the risks of public or compelled disclosure.
