A unanimous victory for First Choice Women's Resource Centers and what it means for pregnancy centers, churches, and ministries
In November 2023, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers received a subpoena.
Aimee Huber, the executive director, had spent more than thirty years caring for women and families at First Choice Women's Resource Centers, a faith-based pregnancy center with five locations across New Jersey. She had walked alongside tens of thousands of women facing unplanned pregnancies.
And now her state's attorney general was demanding up to ten years of internal records, including the names, phone numbers, addresses, and places of employment of First Choice's donors.
There was no donor complaint. No client complaint. No allegation of wrongdoing. Just a sweeping demand backed by the threat of contempt and other devastating penalties.
Two and a half years later, on April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 9-0 in favor of First Choice, affirming that the mere existence of a demand for private donor information burdens First Amendment rights and that organizations facing such ideological harassment have a right to challenge it in federal court.
It is the first time a CMA member has won a case at the Supreme Court. And it was unanimous.
For the broader Alliance, and for every pregnancy center, church, and ministry watching, this victory is a case study on what happens when faithful ministry, legal preparedness, and a steady alliance hold together under pressure.
First Choice has been serving New Jersey women since 1985. The ministry provides material resources and support to mothers and families facing unplanned pregnancies. Every service is free of charge. Every employee, board member, and volunteer adheres to a statement of faith rooted in the conviction that life is created by God and begins at conception.
In nearly forty years, First Choice has served more than 36,000 women.
In 2024 alone, pregnancy centers nationwide provided more than $452 million in free services, including over 600,000 ultrasounds, 200,000 STD tests, 6.3 million packs of diapers, and 39,000 car seats. In New Jersey, pregnancy centers like First Choice provided more than $3 million in free resources and services to over 23,000 women and men.
This is the ministry the New Jersey government has targeted.
In 2022, the New Jersey Attorney General's office launched a "Reproductive Rights Strike Force" and issued a public consumer alert accusing pregnancy centers of providing "false or misleading information about abortion." The alert directed the public to submit any consumer complaints to the New Jersey government. It was drafted with input from Planned Parenthood.
No complaints followed.
But in November 2023, the attorney general issued a subpoena to First Choice anyway. He claimed that First Choice's donors might have been "misled" into giving without realizing the centers do not provide abortions. What was this claim based on? A website featuring pictures of smiling babies and their parents.
For Aimee and her team, the scope of the demand was staggering. The subpoena ran to 28 categories of documents, some with as many as 29 subcategories. It reached back up to ten years. It demanded the names, phone numbers, addresses, and last known places of employment of donors. By First Choice's own estimate, complying would pull the executive director, the volunteer medical director, the finance department, and the entire medical staff away from their life-saving work for at least a full month. And that was just the administrative burden.
Donors give to First Choice for deeply personal, often faith-based reasons. But demands for their information by a hostile attorney general make them think twice about associating with First Choice — whatever their motives. Anonymous donors filed sworn declarations in the case stating they would have been less likely to give had they known their information might be exposed to the same state officials who were openly hostile to pro-life groups. That chills donors’ and First Choice’s First Amendment right to associate freely. And that chill threatened First Choice’s very ability to operate.
But Aimee saw something else, too.
"When we were served a subpoena … I knew this was bigger than us. And I knew that if we didn't stand up, other pregnancy centers would be harassed and targeted, and I couldn't let that happen."
That conviction, that a single ministry's stand could help protect many, became the through-line of the case.
First Choice did not face this alone. ADF attorneys took the case.
Two days before the subpoena's deadline, ADF filed suit in federal court, arguing that the demand violated at least First Choice's First Amendment rights to free speech, free exercise, and free association. Lower federal courts ruled that First Choice had to litigate in state court first. The attorney general responded by filing his own suit in state court, attempting to keep First Choice out of federal court entirely.
ADF asked the Supreme Court to step in.
In June 2025, the Court agreed to hear the case. On December 2, 2025, ADF attorney Erin Hawley argued before the justices.
On April 29, 2026, in a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of First Choice.
The Court held that the attorney general's subpoena, by its very issuance, injured First Choice's First Amendment rights by deterring its donors from associating with the ministry. Because that injury exists the moment a subpoena is issued, ministries facing this kind of state harassment have standing to challenge it in federal court right away. They do not have to wait for state courts to act first.
The Court grounded its ruling in nearly seventy years of Supreme Court precedent, beginning with the 1958 case in which the Alabama attorney general tried to force the NAACP to disclose its membership rolls. That case protected civil rights organizations from government intimidation. The same constitutional principle now protects pregnancy centers and organizations across the ideological spectrum.
In one of the opinion's most memorable lines, the Court wrote:
"Since the 1950s, this Court has confronted one official demand after another like the Attorney General's. Over and again, we have held those demands burden the exercise of First Amendment rights. Disputing none of these precedents but seeking ways around them, the Attorney General has offered a variety of arguments. Some are old, some are new, but none succeeds."
The Court was equally clear about the broader stakes. Donor privacy, the Court wrote, carries "special significance for political, social, religious, and other minorities," the very groups most likely to be targeted by tyrannical government officials.
Briefs supporting First Choice came from groups across the ideological spectrum, including the ACLU, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, and the National Taxpayers Union Foundation. When donor privacy is threatened, organizations that disagree on almost everything else recognize a common danger.
The ruling reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit’s contrary ruling and sent the case back to the lower courts. First Choice can now press its constitutional claims in federal court.
But the work is not over.
The New Jersey attorney general's office has doubled down on its harassment campaign by seeking to fast-track proceedings in state court. But the legal terrain has shifted dramatically. And the ministry that stood firm has cleared the path for every other pregnancy center, church, and faith-based nonprofit that may face the same burdens on their constitutional rights tomorrow to have their day in federal court.
For pregnancy centers specifically, this ruling adds meaningful clarity to the legal landscape. A few things are now clearer:
1. Donor privacy is constitutionally protected. State officials cannot demand donor lists from pregnancy centers without facing serious First Amendment scrutiny in federal court. The Court explicitly rejected the idea that promises of confidentiality, partial exemptions, or future protective orders eliminate the chilling effect on First Amendment rights of the demand itself. The subpoena itself is the injury.
2. You can go straight to federal court. Pregnancy centers facing state investigations that burden First Amendment rights are not forced to litigate in state court first. In New Jersey, for example, the same governor appoints both the attorney general and state judges, which can stack the deck against ministries pushing back. Federal court is available from the moment such a subpoena lands.
3. You don't have to wait for harm to materialize. The Attorney General could not identify a single donor or client complaint filed against First Choice. The Court still recognized that the subpoena itself caused a First Amendment injury the moment it was issued because of its donor demand. Pregnancy centers facing state demands that burden constitutional rights do not have to wait for enforcement, sanctions, or tangible damage before challenging the demands in federal court.
The lessons here are not limited to pregnancy centers. Any church, school, rescue mission, or faith-based nonprofit can take three things from First Choice's story.
1. Religious organizations are protected by the First Amendment. The Court treated First Choice as what it is, a religious ministry doing religious work. Its associational rights were protected as part of the broader First Amendment freedoms the Constitution guarantees to every American who gathers around shared convictions. Pregnancy centers, churches, and other ministries can stand on that same protection.
2. Preparation matters before the crisis arrives. For First Choice, the challenge arrived through a government subpoena. For another ministry, it might come through a zoning dispute, an employment complaint, or a challenge to hiring practices. The form the pressure takes is rarely predictable. But unprepared ministries are far more vulnerable when it arrives. Taking steps now to clarify a statement of faith, align hiring practices, and communicate the ministry's mission consistently is a prudent act of stewardship, with benefits for the predictable and unpredictable aspects of ministry life.
3. One ministry's stand can help many. First Choice's willingness to stand up to government harassment has now changed the legal terrain for every faith-based nonprofit in the country for the better. The donor privacy and associational protections affirmed in this case will stand for pregnancy centers, churches, religious schools, and ministries of every kind that may face similar pressure in the years ahead.
When the Church & Ministry Alliance launched in 2017, the goal was simple. We wanted churches and ministries to have the legal counsel and resources they needed to live out their callings without compromise. Nine years in, hundreds of conversations, thousands of documents, and countless prayer-filled phone calls later, we have just watched the first CMA member win a case at the Supreme Court of the United States.
This milestone represents a faithful ministry that stood firm and a legal alliance that walked alongside them through every stage. It is also a reminder that what looks like the work of a single moment, a 9-0 ruling on a Wednesday morning in April, is almost always the fruit of years of preparation, prayer, and partnership.
We are praying for Aimee, her staff, and every woman and family First Choice continues to serve. We are also praying for the pregnancy centers, churches, and ministries across the country who may face similar pressure in the days ahead but are choosing to boldly walk in the wind.
Wherever your ministry is on the path of legal preparedness, we have created a guide to help you take the next step.
Download the Protecting Your Ministry Guide to learn the practical legal foundations every ministry should have in place before the unexpected arrives.
The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 for First Choice Women's Resource Centers. See what every pregnancy center, church, and ministry can learn from it.
