December 2, 2025
What’s At Stake
What is the case about?
This week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin. In this case, the Attorney General of New Jersey issued investigatory subpoenas to a private, nonprofit organization, demanding extensive internal materials, including confidential donor information. First Choice refused, arguing that complying with such sweeping demands would chill its First Amendment rights, especially the freedoms of speech and association, which include donor privacy. This case presents a critical opportunity to protect the federal right to challenge unconstitutional state action and to reaffirm long-standing protections for donor anonymity.
Who is affected and how?
A ruling in favor of First Choice would safeguard similar organizations and nonprofits from intrusive state subpoenas seeking donor identities or private internal documents. It would allow them to bring constitutional challenges in federal court before being forced into state-court proceedings. The decision could also limit government officials’ ability to use broad subpoenas to unmask donors or pressure nonprofits as a means of advancing a political agenda.
Why does it matter?
The decision could draw an important line against state “fishing expeditions.” If the Court recognizes that demands for donor lists and private records chill free association and expression, it will curb the ability of state officials to launch politically motivated investigations against nonprofits they disfavor. A ruling for First Choice would reaffirm that the government cannot weaponize investigatory tools to intimidate ideological groups, and it would signal that SCOTUS remains a crucial check on such overreach.
Our Take
It is highly likely that SCOTUS will rule in favor of First Choice. Questioning from the justices suggested real concern about the subpoena’s chilling effect on donors, signaling the Court’s willingness to reaffirm strong First Amendment protections against government overreach.
