First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport

The Supreme Court issued a unanimous 9-0 decision in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport, holding an overly broad subpoena against pro-life, religious pregnancy centers inflict a First Amendment injury that confers standing for the pregnancy centers to sue in federal court.‍‍1 The decision is a great victory for First Choice, which may litigate its constitutional challenge to the subpoena once the case returns to the federal district court. Although the Supreme Court’s opinion focuses on a narrow procedural question about standing, the decision is a powerful precedent for the freedom of association in public interest advocacy which will help safeguard the work of the pro-life movement and pregnancy centers. Read more below, or click here for AUL’s full litigation analysis.

Background of First Choice’s Case

First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. is an organization of five faith-based pregnancy centers in New Jersey that has served women and their families since 1985.‍2 Since First Choice believes that “life begins at conception,” the organization “does not provide abortions or refer clients to others for abortions.”‍3

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization,‍4 New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin created a “Reproductive Rights Strike Force,” which published a “consumer alert” asserting pregnancy centers engaged in deceptive practices about abortion.‍5 Although the consumer alert requested the public to file complaints with the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs about specific instances of alleged deceptive practices, “[n]either that division nor the Attorney General’s office received any complaints from the public about First Choice.”‍6 Nevertheless, the Attorney General issued an overly broad subpoena that demanded, among other information and documents, the personal information about First Choice’s donors.‍7 Attorney General Platkin later asserted the subpoena would enable state officials to contact donors to determine if the pregnancy centers “could mislead donors into thinking First Choice provides abortions.”‍8 

First Choice filed a lawsuit in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging the subpoena on First Amendment grounds.‍9 Under Section 1983, “any person who, under color of state law, deprives another of his federal constitutional rights,” may file a lawsuit in federal district court.‍10 First Choice asserted that the subpoena infringed upon its First Amendment freedom of association, which protected the pregnancy centers’ right to work with donors to further their pro-life mission. Since the subpoena required the pregnancy centers to hand over the donors’ personal information to an Attorney General that is hostile to pro-life work, the demands deterred donors from associating with the pregnancy centers.‍11

Read more about the decision of SCOTUS in the full litigation analysis here.

  1. 608 U.S. ___, slip op. at 22 (2026). ↩︎
  2. Id. at 1. ↩︎
  3. Id. ↩︎
  4. 597 U.S. 215 (2022). ↩︎
  5. First Choice, 608 U.S. ___, slip op. at 1–2. ↩︎
  6. Id. at 2. ↩︎
  7. Id. at 2–3. ↩︎
  8. Id. at 3. ↩︎
  9. Id. ↩︎
  10. Id. ↩︎
  11. Id. at 4. ↩︎

Print