In a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court revived First Choice Women’s Resource Centers’ federal challenge and allowed it to sue in federal court over a New Jersey subpoena seeking donor lists and related information tied to an investigation into possible misrepresentation about abortion services.

First Choice argued the investigation and subpoena threaten First Amendment rights by chilling donors and speech, while state officials said the information is needed to determine if donors were deceived and noted that no information had yet been turned over.

The Trump administration sided with First Choice, suggesting the ruling would have limited impact beyond groups with similar First Amendment claims, and state authorities warned it could trigger numerous similar lawsuits.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the court, said that compelled disclosures to government officials can deter individuals from supporting or joining groups with dissident views, underscoring the breadth of the First Amendment concern.

The decision reverses an appellate ruling and sends the case back to U.S. District Court for continued proceedings on the subpoena.

Gorsuch’s ruling directs the case back to the district court so litigation over the subpoena’s constitutionality can proceed.

Platkin criticized the ruling as hindering investigations into deceptive practices and protecting life-saving medical access.

Earlier rulings had dismissed the federal complaint as premature, with the Third Circuit upholding that dismissal before the Supreme Court intervened.

New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport argued the information would not become public, but the court found that rationale insufficient to avoid chilling effects.

The new AG, Jen Davenport, stated the decision is a procedural return to the lower court and that the state will continue defending its subpoena and fraud laws.

Davenport emphasized ongoing enforcement of fraud laws and the continued defense of the subpoena as it returns to the lower court.

The ruling reinforces that compelled production of donor information can burden First Amendment rights even when the state has a legitimate interest.