Case tests scope of federal court access in disputes over compelled disclosure of nonprofit donor identities
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on December 2, 2025, in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Matthew J. Platkin, a case that could reshape when and how nonprofit groups may challenge government attempts to compel disclosure of donor identities. The case pits First Choice, a New Jersey-based pro-life pregnancy resource center network, against the state’s attorney general, who issued an administrative subpoena requesting the names, addresses, and contact information of donors.
First Choice says the subpoena chills the organization’s free speech and association rights. It seeks federal court protection before being forced to comply. The state argues the subpoena is unenforceable unless approved by a court and says the challenge is premature.
The key legal question is whether the federal courts have jurisdiction to hear the case at this stage—before the subpoena has been enforced—and whether the subpoena itself burdens First Choice’s constitutional rights enough to trigger judicial review.
Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Erin M. Hawley argued that the First Amendment protects against compelled disclosure of donor identities, especially when issued by a government hostile to a group’s viewpoint. Hawley pointed to past actions by the New Jersey Attorney General, including a consumer alert targeting pregnancy centers and a “strike force” created to investigate them, as proof that the subpoena was not neutral and posed a credible threat.
“The subpoena commands production on pain of contempt,” Hawley said. “The chilling of First Choice’s associational rights began the moment the subpoena was received.”
Multiple justices pressed Hawley on whether this theory stretched the limits of Article III standing. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Jackson asked whether an unenforced subpoena could be treated as an imminent injury. Justice Barrett asked whether a letter requesting the same information would produce the same harm.
Hawley replied that it was the coercive nature of the language, the surrounding hostility, and the credible threat of enforcement that chilled speech, not merely the form of the request. She cited Bantam Books and NAACP v. Alabama, where government actions that were not court orders still violated First Amendment rights due to their coercive effect.
Representing the United States as amicus in support of First Choice, Assistant to the Solicitor General Vivek Suri agreed. He urged the Court to adopt a “credible threat” standard: if the government’s action carries a real possibility of enforcement and implicates constitutional rights, the target should have standing to sue in federal court.
“The plaintiff doesn’t need to show a chill to have standing,” Suri said. “A credible threat of enforcement is enough. Chill goes to the merits.”
But New Jersey’s counsel, Sundeep Iyer, pushed back. He said the subpoena was not self-executing and that First Choice faces no immediate penalty. Until a state court orders compliance, he argued, there is no constitutional injury, and the federal courts should stay out.
“The state court has declined to enforce the subpoena for over two years,” Iyer said. “The recipient faces no penalties unless a court orders production.”
He also warned that accepting the credible threat standard could flood federal courts with challenges to ordinary subpoenas and interfere with state enforcement systems.
But justices questioned whether the state could shift its position in different forums. Hawley noted that the Attorney General had, in other cases, argued that subpoenas had the force of law. She said the shifting arguments underscored the need for clarity and federal oversight when constitutional rights are at stake.
Analysis: Why the Challenge Should Be Heard in Federal Court
This case raises a fundamental question: Can a citizen seek federal protection when a government action poses a real, constitutionally sensitive threat, even before that threat is formally enforced?
The answer must be yes.
The First Amendment does not require that speech be silenced before courts can step in. It is enough that a credible threat looms. This is especially true when the threat takes the form of compelled disclosure, which courts have long recognized as uniquely chilling to free association. When a state official issues a subpoena that commands compliance, under threat of contempt or business closure, that command should be treated as more than a casual request. It carries with it the weight of government authority.
The idea that a subpoena is harmless until a judge says otherwise cannot stand where protected speech is involved. Constitutional rights cannot depend on how soon the government chooses to enforce its threats or how creative it gets with labeling them. What matters is whether a reasonable person would feel pressured to comply—and First Choice has demonstrated that it would.
The claim that the subpoena is “non-self-executing” ignores its practical effect. The document twice warns that failure to comply may lead to contempt and “other penalties at law.” It also requests names, phone numbers, and employment details of private donors—information that, once exposed, cannot be recalled. For a nonprofit involved in controversial issues, disclosure of such data could lead to harassment or loss of support, precisely the kind of injury the First Amendment seeks to prevent.
To require that First Choice wait for a state judge to rule, knowing the harm may occur in the meantime, is to force the organization into a game of constitutional chicken: risk the damage, or surrender your rights now. That is not a choice the Constitution demands.
Federal courts exist to protect rights before they are violated irreparably. The ability to preemptively challenge government overreach is essential to ensuring those rights mean something in practice.
Moreover, this case does not require courts to open the floodgates. The credible threat standard is already well-established in free speech cases. It ensures that only claims with real, demonstrable risks proceed. First Choice’s claim fits squarely within that tradition.
No one suggests that every subpoena deserves federal scrutiny. But when a government targets speech-related activity, demands donor identities, and does so in a politically charged context, federal courts must not defer.
A ruling for First Choice would not stop legitimate investigations. It would simply ensure that when those investigations risk violating the Constitution, citizens can challenge them before the damage is done.
TLDR (Too Long / Didn’t Read Summary)
On December 2, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, a case examining whether New Jersey’s subpoena of a pro-life group’s donor list violates the First Amendment. First Choice says the subpoena chills its right to associate anonymously and wants federal courts to intervene before disclosure occurs. New Jersey argues that no enforcement has occurred, so no harm has been done. The case centers on whether nonprofits can preemptively challenge subpoenas that burden speech. A ruling is expected by June 2026.
Case Caption:
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General of New Jersey, No. 24-781
Oral Argument: December 2, 2025
Support Our Work
Like this article? Share it and subscribe to the ReligiousLiberty.TV blog at religiouslibertytv.substack.com for timely updates on religious liberty and free speech litigation. Subscribers receive breaking case alerts, expert commentary, and direct access to primary legal documents.
AI Disclaimer:
This article was drafted with the help of an AI tool and reviewed for factual and legal accuracy. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult a licensed attorney for guidance specific to their situation.
Tags:
First Amendment, compelled disclosure, nonprofit donor privacy, Supreme Court 2025, New Jersey subpoena
Source: ReligiousLibertyTV on Substack
