The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin on Dec. 2. It’s a case that strikes at the heart of freedom, including donor privacy protections that allow Americans to give freely and according to their conscience without fear of harassment or reprisal.
The plaintiff, a New Jersey network of nonprofit pregnancy centers, has served over 36,000 women since 1985, offering women and families everything from free counseling and ultrasounds to parenting classes and job training programs. Its work is explicitly motivated by faith, as are the many donors who choose to support it. For them, charitable giving is not simply philanthropy but an expression of deeply held religious commitments.
With no evidence of wrongdoing, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin targeted First Choice by demanding that the organization disclose the names, addresses, and employers of nearly 5,000 donors as well as a decade’s worth of confidential internal records. It’s now up to the Supreme Court to set things straight and allow First Choice to challenge Platkin’s politically motivated investigation in federal court.
The Supreme Court has already ruled against this kind of overreach — twice.
In 2018, the court in NIFLA v. Becerra struck down California’s attempt to force anti-abortion pregnancy centers to advertise state abortion services, recognizing this as unconstitutional compelled speech.
On behalf of women and children transformed by those pregnancy centers, I filed an amicus brief to support them. Angela in New York overcame addiction with weekly support from Soundview Pregnancy Services. Ebony in Maryland, now an author and publisher, found “an authentic and informed choice” at the Greater Baltimore Center. Brooke in Illinois, who survived childhood abuse and kidnapping, became a confident mother through Hope Pregnancy Center. And Shanelle in Colorado found refuge at Alternatives Pregnancy Center after being pressured into taking abortion pills. These are the kinds of women whose own lives are often transformed by the donor-supported services that New Jersey seeks to chill.
Three years later, in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, the Supreme Court ruled that California couldn’t force charities to reveal their major donors unless the state had an extremely important reason and used the narrowest possible approach. Forcing people to disclose this information creates “an unnecessary risk of chilling” their freedom of speech and association, explained Chief Justice John Roberts for the court, especially today when “anyone with access to a computer can compile a wealth of information” about others.
Unlike the donor disclosure regulation in Bonta, which applied to all tax-exempt organizations, Platkin selectively targeted First Choice, demanding not just donor names but extensive internal communications and policies.
The physical and political attacks that pregnancy resource centers have suffered nationwide over the past few years have put a target on their work and those who contribute to it. For this reason, many donors to faith-based pregnancy centers such as First Choice know that anonymity isn’t optional. It’s essential for safety and conscience.
Supporters of anti-abortion causes face harassment and even violence when their identities become known. We’ve seen, for example, Supreme Court justices themselves targeted at their homes for their votes in the case that ultimately struck down Roe v. Wade. Further, many Christians give anonymously because the Bible instructs them to do so. In Matthew 6:3-4, Jesus encourages his followers: “When you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right is doing, so that your almsgiving may be secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.”
Even the ACLU, an institution known for passionately defending abortion, has filed an amicus brief supporting the right of First Choice to protect its donors. The ACLU understands what every civil liberties organization knows: Allowing government to compel disclosure without evidence of wrongdoing opens the door to weaponizing that information against any cause the government opposes. If New Jersey can demand First Choice’s donor list, what prevents future governments from targeting ACLU donors or any organization whose mission challenges government policy?
What’s at stake goes beyond abortion politics. This is about whether government can surveil Americans for supporting causes it doesn’t like — and whether religious freedom still means something in 2025.
SUPREME COURT TO WEIGH WHETHER STATES CAN TARGET DONOR LISTS
Issuing a subpoena without any evidence of wrongdoing and targeting an organization based on its anti-abortion religious viewpoint violates the Constitution. Without the Supreme Court’s intervention, state law enforcement authorities could abuse their authority to harass any nonprofit organization whose message they dislike.
Religious freedom, free speech, and freedom of association are not partisan issues. They are bedrock principles that have allowed our diverse, pluralistic society to thrive for over 200 years. First Choice and its donors deserve nothing less than full First Amendment protection; so do women like Angela, Ebony, Brooke, and Shanelle, who are counting on these centers to be there when they need help most.
Andrea Picciotti-Bayer is director of the Conscience Project and the recipient of the Religious Freedom Institute’s 2025 Religious Freedom Impact Award.
