The First Amendment Protects Donor Privacy

When most Americans bring up the First Amendment, it’s usually in reference to freedom of speech. And that makes sense, given the obvious importance of that protection. But the First Amendment protects so much more than that—from religious freedom, to the right to petition the government, to the freedom of the press.

The First Amendment also protects our freedom of association. If you want to band together and quietly support a cause you believe in—without the government breathing down your neck about it—the First Amendment protects that right.

Another implication of that right is the freedom to associate anonymously. That includes both the organizations you decide to be a member of and the organizations you choose to support. And outside of specific contexts like elections or support for terrorism, the government has no right to inquire into what you choose to financially support. And it especially has no right to target charities or their donors just because it dislikes their views.

That’s why it’s so disturbing that politicians have gone on the offensive to do exactly that. And few cases crystallize that risk better than what’s happening in New Jersey. Under former Attorney General Matthew Platkin, the Attorney General’s office worked with Planned Parenthood to target pro-life pregnancy centers and asserted the most baseless of claims to demand that one such center turn over the names of its donors.

The important work of pregnancy centers

Unlike abortion facilities, non-profit pregnancy centers focus on helping mothers and their unborn children. They accomplish this noble goal through free services, such as ultrasounds, counseling, and parental education. Pregnancy centers also help provide material goods, like clothes, diapers, and car seats.

First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, for instance, operates five locations in New Jersey and offers services free of charge. In its 40 years of operation, it has served over 36,000 women facing unplanned pregnancies.

Despite the obvious good that pregnancy centers like First Choice provide, they’ve still faced an inexplicable amount of hostility.

Dozens of pro-life pregnancy centers have been firebombed, vandalized, and threatened just because of their pro-life views.

Given that sort of targeted violence, it’s understandable why some pro-life supporters would want their information to remain private when donating to pregnancy centers.

And it’s critical that those donors be given that anonymity. Their generosity is the lifeblood of most of these non-profit pregnancy centers, organizations that can only provide free services through the support of donors and volunteers. Dissuading potential donors from donating would be catastrophic for pregnancy centers and the women and children they serve. Yet that’s exactly what New Jersey is working hard to do.

An abuse of government power

Matthew Platkin is a staunch supporter of abortion who has never hidden his disdain for pro-life supporters—and his influence could be felt throughout New Jersey’s government. He said pro-life groups are “extremists attempting to stop those from seeking reproductive healthcare that they need.” He instituted a $5 million grant program to fund and expand abortion services in New Jersey. And worst of all, he asked Planned Parenthood to help him draft a consumer alert warning New Jerseyans not to go to pregnancy centers because they do not perform abortions.

Platkin crossed a serious line in November 2023 when he issued a subpoena to First Choice demanding that it turn over years of its most sensitive information, including the names behind more than half of its donations. (He has since been replaced by a new attorney general, though the targeting of First Choice persists.) That outrageous demand was based on a laughable theory: that First Choice—a pro-life pregnancy center—had hoodwinked donors into contributing to an organization that they might believe performs abortion. He says he needs their names to confirm they weren’t deceived.

Think about that for a moment. A state is targeting a group and its donors because its officials don’t like what they stand for. Radical pro-abortionists may be rooting this on right now, but what happens when the shoe is on the other foot? Even pro-abortion groups like the ACLU recognized this was an overreach when it filed an amicus brief supporting First Choice’s right to challenge the attorney general’s censorship.

It recognized that if a government can do this to First Choice, it can do this to anyone. And that’s a dangerous precedent to set.

The Supreme Court has already protected donor anonymity—and continues to do so

Perhaps the most puzzling part of New Jersey’s actions is that the Supreme Court has already made crystal clear in landmark civil rights cases that donor anonymity is protected by the First Amendment.

In the 1950s, Alabama tried to force the NAACP to turn over its membership lists, which could have been used by the state and white supremacist groups to target those members. In NAACP v. Alabama, the Supreme Court ruled against the state, recognizing that releasing the private information of NAACP supporters would threaten their jobs and their physical safety.

In one of ADF’s U.S. Supreme Court wins, Thomas More Law Center v. Bonta, the High Court ruled that California’s specific attempt to unseal private donor information was unconstitutional.

That case concerned a California law that required non-profits like TMLC to hand over private information on its top donors to the state Attorney General’s Office. The case was eventually taken up to the Supreme Court, along with Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, which ruled that the Golden State had completely overstepped the First Amendment’s bounds.

But that only led to hostile states changing their tactics. Instead of using laws requiring broad-based donor disclosure, they have used subpoenas to target specific organizations they oppose. And pregnancy centers have borne the brunt of these new tactics.

In Obria v. Ferguson, ADF attorneys stuck up for a pair of faith-based, pro-life non-profits like First Choice against government overreach from Washington state’s attorney general. Obria didn’t even need to reach the Supreme Court, as Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson closed his “investigation” into these non-profits after ADF helped file a lawsuit against him.

It is worth noting that in the Obria case, Ferguson was in denial that this “investigation” would harm the non-profits. But after one of the clinics showed that Ferguson’s investigation caused it to lose insurance coverage and to pay seven times more for replacement coverage, the AG relented and withdrew his demands.

But despite these precedents, New Jersey still insists on targeting First Choice and its donors. Praise God, after ADF attorneys helped take this case all the way to the Supreme Court, First Choice got some good news. In April 2026, the High Court issued a unanimous 9-0 decision in favor of First Choice, allowing the group to challenge New Jersey’s invasive subpoena in federal court.

Government officials cannot be allowed to weaponize their power

Despite the good news from the Supreme Court, let’s just call New Jersey’s investigation what it is: ideological harassment disguised as law enforcement. And it is only masquerading as “pro-woman.”

New Jersey isn’t protecting consumers—it’s protecting the monopoly that the abortion business has when it comes to women in crisis. New Jersey has effectively told First Choice that if they don’t align with its agenda, it will make life hard for them and their supporters.

That should be unacceptable to anyone, regardless of where they stand on the abortion issue.

Even if you don’t live in New Jersey, what’s going on there with this attack on donor privacy should still give you pause. If the government can target First Choice today, other state officials could target churches, charities, or countless other groups that you support tomorrow.

Creating a culture free from government intimidation

New Jersey’s attack on donor privacy is unconstitutional, plain and simple. Nobody—not pregnancy centers, nor their donors—should be targeted for their beliefs. When state officials target and harass groups over ideological disagreements, they should be held accountable in federal court for violating their constitutional rights. And the Supreme Court has given First Choice the green light to pursue such justice now.

ADF stands in support of all Americans having the right to support causes they believe in without government officials targeting them.