The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously on April 29 that a New Jersey nonprofit may challenge the state’s demand for confidential information about the group’s donors in federal court. People United for Privacy Foundation (PUFPF) filed an amicus brief in the case arguing that the mere demand for a nonprofit’s donor list constitutes a constitutional injury.

“Today’s unanimous decision is a milestone victory for donor privacy in the courts. All nine Justices agreed that the privacy of donors is a foundational First Amendment right. When a state demands a nonprofit’s donor list, that nonprofit has a right to challenge the demand in federal court. That’s an important safeguard, but it also underscores why strong protections are needed to prevent this kind of overreach in the first place,” said Heather Lauer, CEO of People United for Privacy Foundation.

The case, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Davenport, concerns an investigation by the New Jersey Attorney General into several pro-life pregnancy centers operated by the nonprofit First Choice. The Attorney General accused the group of misleading fundraising practices and issued a subpoena demanding the names, addresses, phone numbers, and employers of many of its donors.

PUFPF encourages states to adopt proactive privacy protections for nonprofit members and donors, such as our model Personal Privacy Protection Act (PPPA), to prevent politically motivated disclosure demands from government officials. 22 states containing over 100 million Americans have passed the PPPA or similar laws since 2018. New Jersey, however, has no such law on its books.

When First Choice challenged the Attorney General’s subpoena in federal court, the state argued that demanding the group’s donor list did not injure its constitutional rights. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme Court emphatically rejected the state’s position.

“An official demand for private donor information is enough to discourage reasonable individuals from associating with a group. It is enough to discourage groups from expressing dissident views,” explained Justice Gorsuch. “A government that chooses to make private donor information public may make the damage worse. But even if there is no disclosure to the general public, the pressure to avoid ties and speech which might displease officials demanding disclosure can be constant and heavy.”

Citing precedents including NAACP v. Alabama (1958) and Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (2021), Justice Gorsuch reminded New Jersey that “any demand for donor information… must overcome heightened First Amendment scrutiny given the deterrent effect on the exercise of First Amendment rights that arises as an inevitable result of the government’s conduct.”

“Against this backdrop,” Justice Gorsuch observed, “the question before us all but answers itself. First Choice has established a present injury to its First Amendment associational rights.”

The decision clears the way for First Choice to seek to have the subpoena blocked in federal court. It also represents a victory for PUFPF, whose amicus brief urged: “This Court should emphasize that demands for membership or donor information are presumptively unconstitutional, and subject to exacting scrutiny, in all cases.”