(The Lion) — The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled Wednesday that a group of New Jersey pregnancy centers can pursue a First Amendment challenge in federal court – after the centers alleged state harassment.

“This is a huge win, not only for First Choice, but for every American who values donor privacy and every organization that values donor privacy,” Gabriella McIntyre, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, told The Lion in an interview.

In 2023, then New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin issued a “sweeping subpoena,” requiring First Choice Women’s Resource Centers to submit decades of internal documents and private information, such as donors’ names, contacts, addresses and places of employment, McIntyre explained. Platkin never cited any evidence of wrongdoing to justify his demands, according to an ADF press release.

“An official demand for private donor information is enough to discourage reasonable individuals from associating with a group,” Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Neil Gorsuch said in the court opinion. “It is enough to discourage groups from expressing dissident views. A government that chooses to make private donor information public may make the damage worse.”

Question of jurisdiction: state or federal court?

First Choice filed a lawsuit, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, in December of 2023 to protect its First Amendment rights, but the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the case, saying First Choice must argue in state court. The Supreme Court overruled this decision this week, saying First Choice’s case belonged in federal court and warranted protection of the organization’s “First Amendment associational rights.”

“The [U.S. Supreme] Court was very clear: the federal courts have an unflagging obligation to take cases within its jurisdiction, and they can’t punt it to the state courts, where there could be a home court advantage for a lot of litigants when they’re going up against state law enforcement officials,” McIntyre said. “So, it’s very important that litigants who are trying to bring their constitutional claims, are able to have access to that federal court.”

The question before SCOTUS only considered whether the case should be heard in state or federal court, and the justices unanimously agreed that the case involving constitutional rights merited proceeding in the federal court system. Limiting the case to state court would grant Platkin “home-court advantage” and would hinder the case from ever arguing in federal court for the protection of constitutional freedoms, she explained.

“This sends a very clear message to attorneys general, especially in other cases that we’re litigating as well: if you’re going to go after constitutionally protected information, you will be held accountable in a federal court,” McIntyre said.

Because the Supreme Court considered the question of jurisdictional location, First Choice will now argue its case in federal court, claiming free speech, free exercise and free association protections under both the first and fourth amendments, McIntyre said.

“New Jersey’s attorney general targeted First Choice – a ministry that provides parenting classes, free ultrasounds, baby clothes, and more to its community – simply because of its pro-life views. That is blatantly unconstitutional,” ADF Of Counsel Erin Hawley said in a press release. “Should the Attorney General continue these efforts on remand, we look forward to presenting First Choice’s case in federal court.”

Platkin’s subpoena demanded enough “to cripple the ministry,” McIntyre said, referencing the small organization’s limited staff and resources. Since Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health returned the abortion issue to the states in 2022, many pregnancy care centers nationwide have suffered such targeting and harassment for their pro-life stance, McIntyre said.

“Pregnancy centers provide women quality health care and empower them with information at a moment when they need it most,” Dr. Susan Bane, vice-chair of American Association of Pro-life OBGYNS, said in a statement. “As the medical director of four pregnancy centers, I see firsthand the integrity and compassion the professionals at these centers show the women who turn to us, and today’s Supreme Court decision is an important step in protecting women’s access to this quality care from the weaponization of government power.”

Nationwide protection for any organization

The 9-0 ruling not only protects faith-based groups, but any organization that values donor protection and privacy, McIntyre said. Nearly 40 organizations “across the ideological spectrum” submitted briefs to affirm First Choice’s protection of privacy, including the American Civil Liberties Union – a left-leaning nonprofit, McIntyre noted.

“This will have sweeping and broad effects for a number of individuals and organizations, all of whom value donor privacy,” she said.

The Supreme Court also referenced previous cases that defended an organization’s protection of donors and privacy, including one case ADF aided in 2021.

“That underscores the importance of this longer game strategy,” McIntyre said. “Each one paves the way for future wins. And these are very important cases, particularly where the court comes out and is very clear about the results. So, we are praising God for this unanimous victory.”