Supreme Court to hear First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin

On December 2, 2025, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral argument in First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin,[1] a case with significant implications for nonprofit donor privacy, First Amendment rights, and the ability of advocacy organizations to challenge state investigatory actions in federal court.

Case background

First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. (First Choice) is a faith-based nonprofit operating pregnancy centers in New Jersey. In 2023, New Jersey Attorney General (AG) Matthew Platkin issued an administrative subpoena under the authority of state law demanding, among other things, the names of nearly 5,000 donors and extensive records about the organization’s operations, advertisements, and personnel over a ten-year period. The stated concern was the potential misleading of donors and clients, but the subpoena did not cite any specific complaints or evidence of wrongdoing.

First Choice challenged the subpoena in federal court before the subpoena return date had passed and argued that it violated its First Amendment rights – specifically, the rights to free speech and free association, including donor privacy. The district court dismissed the case as unripe because it concluded that only a state court has the power to enforce or quash a subpoena issued under state law, requiring First Choice to litigate its constitutional claims in state court first.[2] In a divided opinion, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed and concluded that First Choice “can continue to assert its constitutional claims in state court as that litigation unfolds.[3] The result is that First Choice must risk enforcement and possible criminal penalties before federal courts will hear its constitutional claims.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether, where the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, a federal court in a first-filed action is deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court.

Key legal issues

• First Amendment rights: Does compelled disclosure of donor identities and internal documents by a faith-based nonprofit violate the right to free speech and association?
  
  
• Federal versus state jurisdiction: Must federal courts defer to state courts in adjudicating constitutional claims arising from state investigatory actions, especially when federal rights are at risk of immediate harm?

Potential implications

If the Supreme Court sides with First Choice:

• Strengthening donor privacy: A ruling for First Choice could reinforce the right of nonprofits – especially those engaged in advocacy or controversial issues – to protect donor identities from compelled disclosure by state authorities.
  
  
• Federal forum access: It could clarify that parties facing a credible chill of First Amendment rights have immediate access to federal courts, rather than being forced to exhaust state remedies first.
  
  
• Limits on state investigatory powers: States may face new limits on their ability to use subpoenas or investigatory demands to obtain sensitive information from advocacy organizations.

If the Supreme Court sides with the state:

• Expanded state authority: States could have greater latitude to investigate nonprofits and compel disclosure of donor and operational information, subject to later federal review only after state proceedings are complete.
  
  
• Potential chilling effect: Advocacy groups may be deterred from engaging in controversial speech or association if they fear compelled disclosure and lack immediate federal recourse.
  
  
• Forum-shopping and litigation strategy: The decision could affect where and how constitutional claims are litigated, with possible increases in state court litigation over federal rights.

Key considerations for organizations

• Nonprofits and advocacy groups: Organizations are encouraged to review their donor privacy policies and be aware of the potential for increased state scrutiny and investigatory demands.
  
  
• Litigation strategy: Consider the risks and benefits of challenging state actions in federal versus state court and monitor developments for guidance on jurisdictional strategy.
  
  
• Compliance and risk management: Consider steps to prepare for possible changes in the legal landscape regarding compelled disclosure and state investigatory powers.
  
  
• State administrative subpoenas: If an organization is facing a state administrative subpoena, prompt and strategic action is key. Organizations are encouraged to work with counsel to assess the subpoena’s scope and to engage with the state agency, including, if necessary, challenging the validity of the subpoena in court.

Next steps

DLA Piper will continue to monitor developments in First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin and provide updates as the case progresses.

For more information or to discuss how this case may affect your organization, please contact the authors.

 

^{[1] No. 24-781.
[2] First Choice Women’s Res. Ctrs., Inc. v. Platkin, No. 23-23076, 2024 WL 150096 (D.N.J. Jan. 12, 2024).
[3] First Choice Women’s Res. Ctrs., Inc. v. Attorney Gen. of New Jersey, No. 24-3124, 2024 WL 5088105 (3d Cir. Dec. 12, 2024).}