A broad array of nonprofits with diverse ideological interests joined forces to file amici briefs opposing a politically motivated subpoena request for the donors of an anti-abortion women’s clinic.
In 2023, the attorney general of New Jersey, Matt Platkin, partnered with Planned Parenthood to try to litigate a pregnancy resource clinic, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, out of existence. As part of the litigation against the clinic, the attorney general filed a subpoena demanding their donor list. Along with the clinic’s attorneys from Alliance Defending Freedom, diverse ideological interests are now urging the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene to stop the intrusive subpoena request.
Pregnancy resource clinics like First Choice provide services to women experiencing distressed pregnancies, offering an alternative to abortion. Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, these clinics have become targets of ire from pro-abortion rights activists, to include arson, vandalism, and other violence. As the group explains in its cert petition, “Because of the ‘pattern of violence and intimidation’ against pregnancy centers, First Choice is ‘concerned that if its donors’ identities [become] public, they may be subjected to similar threats.’”
Considering today’s political landscape, it is easy to understand why First Choice Women’s Resource Centers and other nonprofits are reluctant to turn over their donor list. This is also why amici filers include not only anti-abortion and religious liberty groups, but also advocacy groups supporting free markets, the Second Amendment, and immigrant rights. The broad array of groups supporting First Choice demonstrate that fear of politicians abusing their powers to target their opponents is widespread among advocacy organizations.
Last year, PUFPF signed onto a brief supporting First Choice when the case was circulating in lower courts. Citing precedent from AFPF v. Bonta, the brief explained:
It is no wonder why compelled disclosure is used frequently: this form of indirect regulation is intimidating and effective. “Broad and sweeping state inquiries” into “a person’s beliefs and associations”—areas protected by the First Amendment—“discourage citizens from exercising rights protected by the Constitution.”
Unfortunately, this is not the first time public officials have weaponized subpoenas to obtain a nonprofit’s donor list. During the administration of former U.S. President Joe Biden, the Department of Justice issued a subpoena demanding the donor list of Eagle Forum of Alabama, a conservative group that advised the Alabama State Legislature on its law prohibiting gender-altering surgeries on children, a law which the Biden administration was challenging in court.
Similarly, the Texas attorney general filed a subpoena demanding the donor list of a pro-abortion rights group challenging the state’s abortion ban.
Clearly, there are strong incentives for officeholders to demand critics and dissenters disclose their donor lists. Fortunately, the amici filers supporting First Choice realize that this practice is a race to the bottom where all advocacy organizations, no matter their ideological affiliation, would be subject to increasingly pervasive subpoenas demanding sensitive information about their donors and members.
Hopefully, a favorable ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court will put an end to this dystopian practice.