First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport, Docket No. 24-781

Listen to the episode On Spotify on Apple Podcasts or on YouTube

The Supreme Court declared a First Amendment injury occurs when the government secretly demands the names and personal information of people who donate to advocacy groups. In a unanimous decision, the justices ruled that when a state official issues a formal demand for donor lists, the damage to free speech and free association happens immediately, even before anyone is punished for refusing. The case involved a New Jersey anti-abortion nonprofit, but the ruling protects donors to any cause, from civil rights groups to religious organizations.

The Case That Started It All

First Choice Women's Resource Centers is a religious nonprofit in New Jersey that has counseled pregnant women since 1985. The organization does not provide or refer for abortions. In 2022, New Jersey's Attorney General created a "Reproductive Rights Strike Force" and issued a public alert accusing organizations like First Choice of providing misleading information about abortion. No one had complained about First Choice. Yet the Attorney General sent the organization a legal demand for 28 categories of documents, including the names, phone numbers, home addresses, and employers of nearly all its donors.

First Choice sued in federal court, arguing the demand violated its First Amendment right to freedom of association. Lower courts dismissed the case, saying no real injury had occurred because the state would need a separate court order before actually forcing First Choice to hand over the information. The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling unanimously that First Choice suffered a real and ongoing injury the moment the demand was issued.

Why This Matters to Donors

First Choice's lawyer made a straightforward argument: any reasonable donor would think twice about giving money after learning the government had demanded their personal information, especially after the Attorney General had publicly labeled pro-life groups as extremists and launched an investigation without a single complaint. That chilling effect on donations is itself a constitutional injury, she argued. It does not matter that the state still needed a court order to enforce the demand.

The federal government agreed. New Jersey countered that allowing every recipient of a government investigative demand to immediately challenge it in federal court would flood the system with thousands of routine cases. But several justices were skeptical. Justice Alito pointed out that if First Choice had to fight the demand in state court first and lost, it could be permanently blocked from ever raising its federal constitutional claims. Justice Kagan asked plainly whether any donor would actually feel reassured knowing a court still had to sign off before their information was handed over.

What the Court Decided

Justice Gorsuch wrote for a unanimous Court. The decision rests on one principle: the government's demand caused First Choice a present and ongoing injury to its First Amendment right to freedom of association. The injury began the moment the demand was issued and continued for as long as it remained outstanding.

The Court pointed to decades of its own prior decisions establishing that when the government demands private information about an organization's donors or members, it inevitably deters people from associating with that organization. That deterrence is itself a constitutional injury. It does not matter whether the government can immediately punish noncompliance or must first go back to court. The Court used a vivid illustration: the value of a sword hanging over your head is that it hangs there, not that it eventually falls.

The Court also rejected New Jersey's arguments that the harm was minimal. Exempting one donation website from the demand did not cure the injury. A promise to keep the information confidential within the government would not eliminate the chilling effect on donors. And forcing First Choice to fight the demand in state court first would create a trap where losing in state court could permanently block the organization from ever raising its federal constitutional rights.

Maintaining Privacy Rights Within the First Amendment

The most important thing to understand is what the Court chose not to decide. Justice Gorsuch resolved the case entirely on the ground that the demand caused an immediate First Amendment injury, without ruling that every recipient of every government investigative demand can automatically challenge it in federal court. The decision applies specifically to organizations engaged in advocacy when the government demands information about their donors or members, because that kind of demand carries unique constitutional weight.

The Court also made clear that this ruling protects organizations across the entire political spectrum, from the ACLU to religious institutions. This is not a decision about abortion politics. It is a decision about whether the government can demand private donor information from an advocacy group and then claim no harm has been done simply because a court has not yet ordered compliance. Every single justice agreed it cannot.