Share and Follow
As the United States Supreme Court wraps up its 2025 term, a series of pivotal decisions have emerged. While many of these rulings have captured widespread attention, others have quietly slipped by, despite their significance. One such case is First Choice Women’s Resource Center v. Davenport, Attorney General of New York. The unanimous 9-0 decision in this case marks a notable achievement, particularly given the current dynamics of the court and the sensitive nature of the issue at hand.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, who authored the prevailing opinion, emphasized the court’s stance on the matter. He stated, “Against this backdrop, First Choice has established a present injury to its First Amendment associational rights and therefore has standing.”
Also from SCOTUS – NJ pro-life pregnancy can proceed with challenge against subpoena that asked for all kinds of records, including donor information. There had been no complaints against the center when the state started requesting the info. Court UNANIMOUSLY found a potential…
— Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) April 29, 2026
Also from SCOTUS – NJ pro-life pregnancy can proceed with challenge against subpoena that asked for all kinds of records, including donor information. There had been no complaints against the center when the state started requesting the info. Court UNANIMOUSLY found a potential burden on 1st Am rights.
The Supreme Court handed the First Choice pro-life pregnancy center a huge victory Wednesday, ruling that it can challenge a New Jersey investigation seeking its private donor information.
In a 9-0 opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the high court held that the state attorney general’s 2022 subpoena, sent after the creation of a “Reproductive Rights Strike Force,” was chilling to First Amendment freedoms.
“The First Amendment guarantees all Americans the rights to speak, worship, publish, assemble, and petition their government freely,” the Trump appointee wrote. “Each of these rights necessarily carries with it ‘a corresponding right to associate with others.’ Associational rights carry special significance for political, social, religious, and other minorities, protecting ‘dissident expression’ from marginalization or outright ‘suppression by the majority.’
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the SCOTUS opinion and said:
This Court has long held that “compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may constitute as effective a restraint on freedom of association” as more direct forms of suppression, […], and thus has repeatedly subjected demands for private donor or member information to heightened First Amendment scrutiny. Throughout, the Court has recognized the critical role privacy plays in preserving protected association, and it has acknowledged that official demands for private donor information “inevitabl[y]” carry with them a “deterrent effect on the exercise of First Amendment rights.”
Gorsuch concluded, “Against this backdrop, First Choice has established a present injury to its First Amendment associational rights and therefore has standing.”