The Case of Anonymity v. Legality
- Saanvi Hitlamani
- Jul 20
- 5 min read
Updated: 4 days ago
Oyez, oyez, oyez. Though it’s likely a very unfamiliar word, it’s the one spoken three times to begin the proceedings of the Supreme Court; the highest judicial court in the United States. Within the building sit the nine justices, each with a vote that can reshape the country- and such a claim has been proven to be true. In the past few years, the United States has in fact been reformed by several landmark rulings by the Supreme Court; these cases varied from a woman’s access to abortion to, more recently, the ruling on birthright citizenship. With such powerful decisions, the outcomes of which define the livelihoods, status and future of so many Americans, the most important ones often rise to the top of the media cycle. It would be truly impossible for any to be aware of each and every case brought to court but still the education of civilians on the ruling of their own chief court is vital. One case that may have slipped past many, for example, is First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v Davenport.
A Unanimous Agreement
The Supreme Court, as most know, operates on a series of spoken dissent and assent. Considering the importance of each vote and the varying beliefs or backgrounds of each of the justices it would seem that unanimity would be deeply improbable- yet it happens more often than not. In the case of First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v Davenport, all of the nine justices voted in favor of First Choice. Moreover, the case was brought into court by First Choice, making them the petitioner, and was against New Jersey’s Attorney General, Jennifer Davenport (though formerly handled by previous Attorney General, Matthew Platkin). It had all begun with one subpoena.
First Choice Women’s Resource Center is a counseling resource for women facing unplanned pregnancies, providing medical testing and other resources being well known for being a pro-life and Christian nonprofit. Attorney General Davenport, in 2022, cited the organization for purposefully providing false information about abortion access, limiting reproductive care. The subpoena issued in order to investigate the organization called for Attorney ten years' worth of internal documents including donor names, documents on claims the organization had made and copies of advertisements. Subsequently, First Choice took the Attorney General to the lower courts.
(Credits to Liberty Justice Center)
It’s important to ask why this subpoena was so important or worth the legal lawsuit- after all, it’s not uncommon to hear subpoena as a legal term; in so many criminal investigations things like emails or even text messages can be subpoenaed. Yet, for First Choice Women’s Resource Center, the base of the organization could be tainted if they provided the Attorney General with what she was asking for. Donors are granted anonymity for most charitable organizations, and with the subpoena calling for a list of donors it was making it such that many would likely no longer want to associate with the organization. As such, First Choice Women’s Resource Center called upon the 1st Amendment.
Chill Out
In court, the attorney for First Choice opened by reminding the room of the right of association- a basic but very strong right that every individual holds and it is the right of individuals to peacefully associate with others and form groups to share similar opinions. For First Choice, their right of association was protected when donors were given anonymity and was now disrupted by the Attorney General’s subpoena. Two important claims made in court for First Choice was the mention of the associational harm theory and the pre-enforcement theory. To discuss the first theory, the name itself is self-explanatory, but the argument being made is that the donors who would have their names subpoenaed would gain harm from being associated with the legal case. This would “chill” the donors- another term used a lot in this case- meaning that the organization would have far less support. It’s easy to understand the stance of First Choice, as they viewed the situation as unjust to their organization’s right to exist under the 1st Amendment and viewed the subpoena as an unlawful request that would cause a lot of harm to their donors and group as a whole.
A Non-Self Executing Demand
So, inversely, it’s important to consider the arguments made by the Attorney General. The argument largely made was that the subpoena given to First Choice was non-self-executing. A subpoena that is not self-executing requires a court order to enforce it. Yet, this did not argue exceedingly well- the pre-enforcement theory was mentioned and it is, as the name suggests, the ability to go to court over a regulation (in this scenario the subpoena) before it was even enforced. For First Choice, this is exactly what they were doing, so although the Attorney General was arguing that the subpoena did not have any force to it, it did not suffice to answer claims about how it impacts donors or the rights of the organization as a whole.
The Attorney General of New Jersey had a case against First Choice as “[They] had concerns about potentially misleading donors. [They] had concerns about the unlicensed practice of medicine. [They] had concerns about patient privacy practices. [They] had concerns about concerns about potentially misleading or untrue medical documents,” as said directly in the court case by attorney Sundeep Iyer. Yet, as the Court pointed out, there were no complaints made about First Choice.
In order to summarize the court proceedings, it is best put into two sentences: First Choice felt attacked by the subpoena and felt their donors would be apprehensive that the Attorney General of the state wanted their names and information- they chose combat this by utilizing the First Amendment and fighting for their right to exist as an organization while fighting before the subpoena was issued by court. The Attorney General had concerns about the information First Choice was providing to expecting mothers and wanted to address the issue in order to stop misinformation or misleading practices. The case was argued on December 2nd of 2025 and decided on April 29th of 2026.
The Verdict
The decision was in the favor of First Choice. It set an entirely new precedent specifically for organizations that rely on donation. It allows businesses or organizations to directly go to federal court if they need to challenge the government. It allows donors to stay anonymous.
The Supreme Court makes enormous decisions that change lives so immensely, and each and every case is important to be discussed. This one may seem impactful to a lot of the general population, but one just needs to think back to the last time one provided a five dollar donation or rounded up in support. The right to support any organization privately is protected. Every amendment is protected in Court. The Constitution is regularly defended (seen in the case for birthright citizenship). With First Choice Women’s Resource Center, a strong claim from the New Jersey Attorney General turned into a new way to address subpoena and new legal terms for all to learn. The court is adjourned.
References
Howe, Amy. “Court Unanimously Sides with Faith-Based Pregnancy Centers in Litigation Dispute with
New Jersey.” SCOTUSblog, 30 Apr. 2026,
s-in-litigation-dispute-with-new-jersey/. Accessed 15 July 2026.
“First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. V. Davenport, 608 U.S. ___ (2026).” Justia Law, 2026,
2026.
“First Choice Women’s Resource Centers V. Davenport.” Alliance Defending Freedom, 18 Dec. 2023,
2026.
“First Choice Women’s Resources Centers, Inc. V. Davenport.” Jenner & Block LLP | Law Firm - First
Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. V. Davenport, Jenner, 2026,
v-davenport. Accessed 15 July 2026.
“Justices Grill Attorney On His Claim That Non-Self-Executing Subpoena Is Enough In The Case.”
Www.Youtube.Com, 8 Dec. 2026, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjoamofd8ka. Accessed 15
July 2026.
“Overview of Freedom of Association | Constitution Annotated | Congress.Gov | Library of Congress.”
Congress.Gov, 2015,
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-8-1/ALDE_00013139/. Accessed 15 July
2026.
Supreme Court of the United States.
“Supreme Court Procedures.” United States Courts, 2024,
activity-resources/supreme-court-procedures. Accessed 15 July 2026.
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. V. Platkin, 2025, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2025/24-781.
Accessed 15 July 2026.
Comments