A recent United States Supreme Court decision provides important guidance for nonprofits, including private schools, regarding compelled disclosure of donor information. In First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport, the Court considered whether a nonprofit may immediately challenge a government demand for donor information or whether it must wait until a court orders compliance with the demand.
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers (“First Choice”) is a New Jersey nonprofit organization that provides counseling and resources to pregnant women. In 2023, the New Jersey Attorney General, Matthew J. Platkin, served a subpoena to First Choice seeking numerous categories of records. Among other things, the subpoena demanded documents identifying many of the organization’s donors, including names, addresses, phone numbers, and places of employment. The subpoena also warned that failure to comply could result in contempt proceedings and other penalties. The New Jersey Attorney General later explained that his office sought donor information in connection with an investigation into whether donors may have been misled about the organization’s mission and operations.
In response to the subpoena, First Choice filed suit in federal court under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, arguing that the demand for donor information violated its First Amendment rights. First Choice alleged that donors could be discouraged from supporting First Choice if there was no guarantee of donor anonymity and that the subpoena interfered with First Choice’s ability to recruit and retain supporters.
Before a federal court can decide a case, a plaintiff must have “standing,” which means the plaintiff must show that it has suffered, or is about to suffer, a real injury that the court can address.
The key question in this case was whether the subpoena itself caused a sufficient injury to First Choice, such that First Choice had standing to sue. First Choice argued that the subpoena’s issuance alone burdened its First Amendment associational rights. The New Jersey Attorney General argued that no injury existed yet because no court had enforced the subpoena and ordered the nonprofit to produce the information.
The federal district trial court dismissed the case, concluding that First Choice had not yet suffered an injury because no court had compelled production of the requested donor information. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the lower courts’ decisions. The Court explained that the First Amendment protects not only speech but also the right to associate with others to advance shared political, religious, charitable, and social goals.
Relying on decades of precedent addressing compelled disclosure of donor and membership information, the Court reiterated that privacy often plays an important role in protecting freedom of association. Government demands for donor information can discourage individuals from supporting organizations and can pressure organizations to modify their activities or advocacy.
Accordingly, the Court held that First Choice had adequately alleged a present injury. The Court explained that the injury arose when the government demanded donor information and continued for as long as that demand remained outstanding. Accordingly, First Choice did not need to wait for a court order compelling disclosure before challenging the demand.
The Court also rejected arguments that there was no injury because some donors could still contribute anonymously through certain channels or because the New Jersey Attorney General represented that donor information would remain confidential. The Court emphasized that demands for donor information may burden First Amendment rights even when the information is not publicly disclosed.
The Court sent the case back to the lower courts for further proceedings. Importantly, the Court did not decide whether the subpoena ultimately violates the First Amendment. The Court held only that First Choice had standing to pursue its constitutional challenge.
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport (2026) 224 L. Ed. 2d 672.
Note: This case reinforces that donor information deserves careful protection. The Supreme Court recognized that government demands for donor identities can affect an organization’s ability to attract and retain supporters. Schools should carefully review subpoenas and other government requests for donor information with legal counsel before responding.