Amicus Brief: Defending Free Association from Government Intimidation

First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General of New Jersey  

>Read the amicus brief here

New Jersey’s Attorney General has abused his investigative powers against a collection of a five faith-based pregnancy centers, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, demanding years of internal records, including private donor information for nearly 5,000 contributions. This overreaching demand–compelling disclosure of sensitive donor information–violates core First Amendment protections for free speech and free association.  

But the district court dismissed the pregnancy centers’ First Amendment lawsuit, ruling that an attorney general’s investigative demand cannot be challenged in federal court unless it is first enforced in state court. CIR joined dozens of other organizations on an amicus brief supporting First Choice Women’s Resource Centers in urging the Supreme Court to clarify that a federal court has jurisdiction to hear and rule on the claim that a state subpoena chilled the centers’ associations with donors and their speech. 

The brief urges the courts to recognize that government cannot indirectly, through onerous donor reporting regulations, silence organizations with unpopular or dissenting views. When government officials use their power to intimate and silence organizations they dislike, they undermine the very foundations of free association that make civil society possible. Donor privacy is a constitutional safeguard, not a political loophole.  

Why This Case Matters:  

This case exposes a dangerous government tactic: using legitimate investigative powers as weapons against disfavored viewpoints. Unfortunately, this tactic is nothing new. In the 1950’s, various state and local officials engaged in similar investigative demands in an effort to oust the NAACP from the South.  

Attorney General Platkin’s sweeping demand for donor records has no legitimate law-enforcement purpose—it’s designed to drain resources, deter contributions, and stigmatize pro-life advocacy.  

The threat of disclosure alone is enough to chill speech and association. Potential donors, knowing their identities could be exposed, will think twice before supporting causes the government opposes. Organizations lose funding, their voices are weakened, and the diversity of viewpoints that strengthens our pluralistic democracy is diminished. 

This pattern of government intimidation threatens every nonprofit organization, regardless of ideology. Religious charities, civil-rights groups, environmental organizations—all depend on donors who give without fear of harassment or retaliation. If the government can force disclosure whenever it disagrees with an organization’s mission, the right to free association becomes meaningless. 

Background: Donor Privacy and the First Amendment Right to Free Association  

The Supreme Court has long recognized that the right to associate privately is inseparable from the right to speak freely. In NAACP v. Alabama (1958), the Court unanimously ruled that forcing the NAACP to reveal its membership lists would expose members to harassment and deter them from exercising their constitutional rights to associate and speak through the organization. More recently, in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (2021), the Court reaffirmed that donor privacy is not just a courtesy—it’s a constitutional requirement when it invalidated a California regulation requiring charitable organizations to disclosure substantial contributors to the state. 

These cases reflect a fundamental principle: The government cannot accomplish indirectly what the Constitution forbids it from doing directly. It cannot silence dissenting voices through the backdoor of invasive investigations and require disclosure when it cannot silence them through the front door of direct censorship.