Today, in First Choice Women’s Resource Center v. Davenport (previously First Choice Women’s Resource Center v. Platkin), the Supreme Court unanimously reiterated what it said almost 70 years ago in the Civil Rights-era case NAACP v. Alabama, securing the First Amendment-protected right to Freedom of Association when it ruled for a pro-life pregnancy center that had been targeted by the New Jersey Attorney General. Advancing American Freedom is proud to have led a coalition of 69 amici standing for life and donor privacy in this case.
In First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, Matthew Platkin, the Attorney General of New Jersey, issued a subpoena to the pro-life pregnancy center demanding that it turn over a massive amount of information, including personal information of the donors behind 5,000 donations. First Choice sued in federal court asserting its First Amendment rights to free speech and free association.
New Jersey argued that its demand for information did not harm First Choice and that it therefore did not have standing to sue. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected that argument, explaining that “our cases have long recognized that demands for a charity’s private member or donor information” “burdens a plaintiff’s constitutional rights.”
We applaud the Court’s decision and hope that it will help clarify the issue for lower courts, including the 6th Circuit which is hearing oral arguments today in Buckeye v. IRS, another donor privacy case in which AAF led a 140-member coalition in filing an amicus brief.
“This is a major win both for donor privacy and for pro-life organizations in pro-abortion states like New Jersey. America works best when people in the public square feel secure in their persons and their property from government reprisal or targeting from activist organizations,” said AAF General Counsel J. Marc Wheat. “Today’s unanimous victory in the Supreme Court ensures that charitable organizations have their day in court to defend the privacy of their donors, a principle of increasing importance in this age of political polarization. We applaud the Court’s decision.”