OPINION:
The Supreme Court last month delivered a decisive and unanimous victory for donor privacy and free association in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Davenport. It was a ruling that should send a clear message to government officials tempted to weaponize their authority against disfavored causes.
The case goes back to 2022, when New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin launched a “Reproductive Rights Strike Force.” That effort quickly moved beyond public messaging.
It issued a “consumer alert” targeting organizations like First Choice, encouraging complaints against them despite no evidence of wrongdoing.
Then came the subpoena.
In 2023, the state demanded sweeping internal records from First Choice, including the names, addresses and employers of its donors.
Notably, the organization was not under investigation due to any actual complaint. The message was unmistakable: Certain viewpoints would be singled out, and those who supported them would be exposed.
That kind of government overreach raises serious constitutional concerns. As Philanthropy Roundtable argued in an amicus brief in Buckeye Institute v. IRS, vague laws and unpredictable enforcement don’t just chill speech; they suppress it.
The 2021 Supreme Court decision in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta noted that the First Amendment has “a corresponding right to associate with others.” When citizens fear retaliation for their beliefs, many will simply stay silent.
The Supreme Court rightly refused to accept New Jersey’s argument that First Choice had to wait for “tangible harm” before seeking relief. The justices recognized that forcing disclosure of private donor information is itself an injury to the First Amendment rights of both organizations and their supporters.
Importantly, the court affirmed that constitutional rights are not protected if citizens must first surrender them in order to defend them.
This principle is deeply rooted in American law. The Court cited NAACP v. Alabama, in which compelled disclosure of donor lists was deemed a direct form of suppression. That landmark ruling acknowledged what remains true today: Privacy is often a prerequisite for free expression.
And the American people agree.
November 2025 polling for Philanthropy Roundtable shows broad public support for donor privacy. Nearly twice as many Americans say they are uncomfortable with the government knowing where they give charitably as those who are comfortable.
Even more striking: More than three-quarters agree that Americans should be free to support causes they believe in, even controversial ones, through private giving.
This is not a partisan issue. It is a constitutional one.
Charitable giving is an expression of belief. It is speech in action. And in a free society, citizens must be able to support causes, religious, political or humanitarian, without fear that their personal information will be exposed or weaponized.
The Supreme Court has now made clear that governments cannot sidestep these protections by forcing compliance first and allowing challenges later. That’s a critical safeguard, but it is only the beginning.
As this case returns to the lower courts, judges should consider that New Jersey’s demand for donor information presents a grave threat to the First Amendment when hearing the case. Anything less risks eroding the freedoms the court has just reaffirmed.
Lawmakers in Washington should take note. Efforts to mandate donor disclosure at the federal level, whether through tax policy or campaign finance reforms, would raise the same constitutional concerns the court addressed here.
Congress should resist the temptation to erode donor privacy in the name of transparency, particularly when doing so risks chilling the very civic participation that sustains a free society.
Civil society depends on the voluntary actions of private citizens. It is through philanthropy that Americans advance ideas, support communities and shape the moral fabric of the nation. Undermining donor privacy doesn’t just threaten individual rights; it weakens the institutions that sustain a free country.
The court has drawn the line. Now it’s up to the rest of the judiciary to enforce it.
• Claudia Cummings is senior vice president at the Philanthropy Roundtable.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.