Supreme Court Unanimously Clears Path to Challenge New Jersey’s Unconstitutional Donor Disclosure Demands
As argued in ALEC’s amicus brief, the state’s threat to expose the organization’s donors is the harm itself, imposing a strong chilling effect on speech and association.
Today’s Supreme Court’s decision in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Davenport (formerly versus Platkin) marks a monumental ruling in the state-sanctioned intimidation of private organizations at the expense of the First Amendment. The Court answered a simple but consequential question: Does an organization suffer injury from the mere issuance of a subpoena demanding its donor’s identities? The Court’s answer was an emphatic “Yes.”
This case began when First Choice filed a federal lawsuit alleging violations of its First Amendment rights after the New Jersey Attorney General issued an investigatory subpoena compelling its donor information. The U.S. district court dismissed for lack of standing because the subpoena had not been enforced, and the Third Circuit affirmed, finding the claim not yet justiciable. Today, the Supreme Court clarified the standing issue.
Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch rejected the idea that injury begins only when the government’s threats become fully realized. As the opinion explains, compelled disclosure of donor identities can operate “as effective a restraint on freedom of association” as more direct suppression. As argued in ALEC’s amicus brief submitted in August 2025, the state’s threat to expose the organization’s donors is the harm itself, imposing a strong chilling effect on speech and association. As Justice Gorsuch observed, “[T]he value of a sword of Damocles is that it hangs—not that it drops.”
When government acts to intimidate, the Constitution allows those affected to immediately challenge such intimidation. That safeguard is essential. Without it, the pressure of investigation and donor disclosure could succeed in undermining groups of varied beliefs and causes, where overt censorship would fail.
While this decision on justiciability is a major win, it is about much more than standing doctrine or procedure. Today’s decision affirms the principle that citizens retain the practical ability to freely support causes without fear that their identities will be exposed by zealous or malevolent state actors. It reinforces a critical legal foundation: The First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech extend so far as to prohibit state action that dissuades donors’ support.
ALEC applauds the Supreme Court for its decision in favor of First Choice. Protecting the rights of organizations to freely associate and develop their support for their causes is paramount in the eyes of the First Amendment; upholding the ability to challenge chilling state action is a critical protection in defense of those liberties.