A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision suggests that sensitive donor information may be protected—for now.

On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Davenport that a New Jersey nonprofit had standing to challenge a state subpoena demanding its donor information. The nation’s highest court overturned a lower court decision that had said the group had to wait until the subpoena was actually enforced.

The Court ruled that the non-profit didn’t have to wait for the government to force it to comply before it could challenge the subpoena. Just being asked to hand over sensitive donor information—especially because it could scare people away from donating—is enough to constitute a legal injury.

Importantly, the Court did not decide whether the subpoena itself is unconstitutional. It only decided that the nonprofit has the right to challenge it now, rather than later.

Justice Gorsuch wrote the opinion for a unanimous Court.

First Choice Background

First Choice Women’s Resource Centers is a religious nonprofit that has operated in New Jersey since 1985, providing counseling and resources to pregnant women. The organization believes that life begins at conception and, consistent with that belief, does not provide abortions or refer clients to abortion providers.

In 2022, then–New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin established a “Reproductive Rights Strike Force,” which issued a consumer alert accusing organizations like First Choice of misleading women about their access to reproductive health care. Notably, the state had received no complaints from the public about First Choice.

Nevertheless, in 2023, the Attorney General served First Choice with a subpoena directing it to produce 28 categories of documents. Most significantly, the subpoena sought the names, addresses, phone numbers, and places of employment of nearly all donors who had contributed to the organization—except those who donated through one specific webpage. The request covered donations dating back to January 1, 2021, and warned twice that failure to comply could result in........

© Forbes