The Government Wants My Donor List?

Xylee Alvarez

December 2025

This week, the Supreme Court convened to hear a case that seemed like a deceptively small dispute but turned into a constitutional migraine the moment you took a peek under the hood. Here are the details. First Choice is a pro-life nonprofit running pregnancy resource centers. The State of New Jersey thought something didn’t smell right in 2023, mainly the fact that the organization’s donor messaging didn’t match its client-facing websites, and that some medical statements might have been made by individuals who aren’t exactly wearing white coats. The state filed a subpoena demanding internal records, proof of health claims, advertising materials, and the holy grail of them all: donor identities. 

When it comes to nonprofits, donor lists are private for a reason. They tell us who supports what and what people believe, and these names may become the people scrutinized for their beliefs. So when the State comes asking for these names, of course, First Choice was gonna panic, it's like asking “Hey! Who likes you? Give us their numbers too.” 

The subpoena was non-self-executing. What that means is First choice didn’t actually have to comply unless a court ordered them to, and the state court didn’t order anything. It told everyone to negotiate and narrow the donor requests. However, the government was already peeking over their shoulder. In turn, First Choice filed a federal lawsuit, arguing that the subpoena itself was already violating their First Amendment rights. I think this case is absolutely necessary. Honestly, it feels like a very tense game of “what if?” So, here we are: the Supreme Court has been asked a deceptively simple but emotionally charged question: if a nonprofit shows an objectively reasonable claim of its First Amendment rights because of a state subpoena, must it wait for the entire state court process to finish before a federal court can help? 

Reading the transcript of the case, the government’s argument really got me. The insistence that, because the subpoena hasn’t been enforced yet, nothing “real” has happened. Which, in a sense, I get it, but think of the people who are worried that their names might end up in a government file. Not a pretty thought. However, I understand the government, because in hindsight, this case is a matter of, can you truly just scream “First Amendment!!!” before anything really happens? This case is maddeningly technical. There were moments when I could hear the frustration in the justices' voices as they tried to understand the theories First Choice was presenting. 

It’s not like First Choice is asking for a free pass. They’re saying if the State wants to take our donor lists, get a court order, and then we’ll fight about it. The real problem is that they simply aren’t there yet! Hence, the frustration of the court hearing this case has escalated rather quickly. What is left for the Supreme Court to decide is whether federal courts should hold open their doors early enough to protect people before their speech goes cold. This decision can be quite impactful for other non-profit organizations; it may spark some fear. Despite this, I think that the court will rule in favor of Platkin. While there was still some fiery debate between Platkin and the court, like between Justice Gorsuch and Platkin's representation, Mr. Iyer, I have a feeling the Court just isn’t sold on the whole idea of defending someone before the punch is thrown.