Supreme Court rules for First Choice in landmark donor privacy decision: Key takeaways

On April 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport,[1] holding that a faith-based nonprofit organization has Article III standing to challenge a state Attorney General’s investigatory subpoena in federal court when that subpoena demands disclosure of donor identities.

The decision, which reversed the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, has significant implications for nonprofit donor privacy, First Amendment associational rights, and the ability of advocacy organizations to obtain immediate federal court review of state investigatory actions.

In this alert, we provide key takeaways from the decision and considerations for nonprofits and advocacy organizations.

Case background

First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. (First Choice) is a religious nonprofit organization that has provided counseling and resources to pregnant women in New Jersey since 1985.

In 2023, then-New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin served a subpoena on First Choice for production of 28 categories of documents, including documents reflecting the names, phone numbers, addresses, and employers of all individuals who had made donations to First Choice by any means other than through a single specific webpage. The subpoena warned twice that failure to comply could render the group liable for contempt of court and other penalties. Notably, neither the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs nor the Attorney General’s office had received complaints from the public about First Choice.

First Choice filed suit in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking to prevent enforcement of the document demands and arguing that the demand for donor information violated its First Amendment rights. The district court denied a preliminary injunction and dismissed the complaint, holding that, absent any state court order compelling production, First Choice had yet to suffer an injury and therefore lacked Article III standing. A divided panel of the Third Circuit affirmed.

The Supreme Court’s decision

In an opinion delivered by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed and remanded, holding that First Choice has established a present injury to its First Amendment associational rights sufficient to confer Article III standing. The Court focused on whether First Choice had suffered an injury that was concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent.

The Court reaffirmed that the First Amendment guarantees the rights to speak, worship, publish, assemble, and petition the government freely and that each of these rights necessarily carries with it a corresponding right to associate with others. Drawing from previous decisions, the Court emphasized that 1) compelled disclosure of affiliation with advocacy groups may restrain freedom of association as effectively as more direct forms of suppression and 2) official demands for private donor information inevitably deter the exercise of First Amendment rights.

The Court held that such demands 1) discourage association with groups engaged in advocacy protected by the First Amendment and 2) encourage groups to cease or modify protected advocacy the government disfavors. These effects occur not only when a demand is enforced, but also when it is made and for as long as it remains outstanding.

The Court rejected each of the Attorney General’s three arguments against standing. First, it held that it does not matter that subpoenas issued by the Attorney General are purportedly “non-self-executing” because donors would reasonably fear disclosure and a reasonable recipient would be induced to trim its protected advocacy, regardless of whether enforcement was immediate or contingent on later state court action. (The Court’s precedents do not require, and in fact foreclose, a rule requiring the recipient to await a state court enforcement order before challenging the demand in federal court.)

Second, the Court held it does not matter that the subpoena allowed First Choice to solicit funds through a single website without disclosing donor identities. Restricting how the organization may interact privately with its donors itself burdened its associational rights, and the government may not channel disfavored groups’ associational activity into narrow, state-preferred forms.

Third, the Court held that it makes no difference whether a state court issues a protective order because demands for private donor information burden First Amendment rights, even if there is no disclosure to the general public. The Court explained that, as long as the demand remains outstanding, it may create pressure to avoid associations or speech that could displease officials seeking disclosure.

Key takeaways

• Standing for pre-enforcement First Amendment challenges: The decision confirms that recipients of state investigatory subpoenas demanding sensitive associational information need not wait for a state court enforcement order – or for any risk of contempt or other penalties to arise – before seeking relief in federal court.
  
  
• Strengthened donor privacy protections: The Court’s reaffirmation that compelled disclosure of donor information chills associational rights from the moment a demand is made could provide a strong foundation for nonprofits, particularly those engaged in advocacy or controversial issues, to resist broad investigatory demands for donor lists.
  
  
• Limits on state investigatory powers: State authorities seeking donor or member information from advocacy organizations may expect heightened First Amendment scrutiny. According to the Court’s decision, protective orders or limited carve-outs, such as permitting one channel of anonymous donation, will not defeat standing or cure the underlying constitutional injury.
  
  
• Federal forum access: The decision clarifies that parties facing a credible chill of First Amendment rights from state investigatory action have immediate access to federal courts and are not required to exhaust state remedies first.

Considerations for organizations

Nonprofits and advocacy organizations are encouraged to review their donor privacy policies and intake practices in light of the Court’s reaffirmation of associational privacy and the deterrent effects of compelled disclosure.

Organizations facing state administrative subpoenas – particularly those seeking donor or membership information – may work with counsel to 1) assess the subpoena’s scope, 2) evaluate the strength of any First Amendment challenge, and 3) consider whether to seek immediate relief in federal court as opposed to awaiting state enforcement proceedings.

State agencies, in turn, can expect that broad investigatory demands implicating associational rights will face federal judicial review earlier and more thoroughly.

Next steps

DLA Piper will continue to monitor developments following First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport, including how lower courts apply the Supreme Court’s standing analysis to other state investigatory demands and the further proceedings on remand. For more information or to discuss how this decision may affect your organization, please contact the authors.

[1] First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport, No. 24-781, 608 U.S. ___ (Apr. 29, 2026) (slip op.) (Gorsuch, J., for a unanimous Court).