The Supreme Court’s oral arguments in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin have thrust donor privacy into the national spotlight. This case involves the New Jersey attorney general’s attempt to compel a Christian pregnancy center to disclose sensitive information about its donors, clients, and internal operations. The subpoena demands private data under the guise of investigating alleged deceptive practices. Such government overreach threatens essential First Amendment protections, including free speech, religious freedom, and freedom of association.Â
This case is part of a broader pattern, reflected in current congressional efforts such as Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) Litigation Transparency Act and Rep. Ben Cline’s (R-VA) Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act. These proposed laws, while possibly well-intended, would require litigants to reveal the identities of third-party funders backing lawsuits. Such measures threaten the confidentiality of supporters who enable individuals and small organizations to challenge unjust government actions or corporate misconduct. Forced disclosures threaten donor anonymity and expose contributors to harassment and retaliation, precisely as the New Jersey subpoena seeks to do.
Mandatory disclosure laws such as these are deeply troubling and facially unconstitutional. The First Amendment protects anonymous association and political expression, a principle firmly established in landmark rulings such as NAACP v. Alabama. In that case, the Supreme Court recognized that forcing disclosure of donors can burden lawful association by exposing supporters to economic reprisal and public hostility. Similarly, compelling litigation funders to reveal their identities infringes on their right to back causes without fear of intimidation. The New Jersey case powerfully demonstrates this danger by targeting donors linked to a faith-based group to expose its private backing.
Beyond constitutional concerns, these disclosure laws could weaponize government oversight and activist watchdogs to suppress legal challenges. Litigation finance is a vital tool for leveling the playing field in courts, particularly for ordinary citizens and under-resourced groups confronting government overreach and powerful corporate interests. Litigation funding allows these challengers access to justice they might otherwise lack. Without robust protection, these efforts may be stifled, threatening the availability of legal recourse and democratic accountability.
Additionally, these policies risk chilling legitimate legal challenges to unconstitutional or excessive regulations. Forcing disclosure or merely stigmatizing funders would diminish the willingness to support important lawsuits. Without confidential funding, small businesses, families, and advocates face overwhelming financial barriers to contest government and corporate actions. This undermines the essential balance of power between branches of government by weakening judicial review as a check on tyranny.
The Supreme Court’s decision in First Choice will send a crucial message about protecting associational privacy from unchecked government intrusion. It affirms that citizens have the right to support causes discreetly and pursue legal remedies without fear of public exposure of their supporters. All defenders of liberty must stand firm against both the New Jersey subpoena and federal disclosure mandates that share the same dangerous blueprint for eroding privacy and stifling free expression.
Likewise, lawmakers should reject unconstitutional disclosure requirements and focus instead on safeguarding the protections that permit Americans freely to back causes of conscience. Litigation finance is not a threat; it is an essential safeguard that empowers citizens to ensure accountability and defend their rights in court. The ability to fight legal battles without fear of political or financial retaliation is fundamental to maintaining a just system where all voices are heard.
Preserving donor privacy and freedom to fund legal challenges is central to protecting speech, faith, and liberty from government overreach. Defending these freedoms sustains the judiciary’s role as a vital check on unrestrained power and keeps the doors of justice open to all Americans. The right to stand up, challenge authority, and seek justice must never hinge on surrendering privacy.
DONORS SHOULD BE ABLE TO SUPPORT PRO-LIFE CAUSES WITHOUT GOVERNMENT HARASSMENT
In this critical moment, lawmakers must resist overregulation and politically motivated targeting. Legal funding freedom should be championed as a cornerstone of fairness and equality under the law. Protecting donor anonymity safeguards individuals’ and organizations’ right to support causes they believe in without fear. It forms a fundamental bulwark against government intrusion and is essential for vibrant civic discourse and access to justice.
Eroding donor privacy risks silencing advocacy by allowing fear and government intrusion to replace open civic engagement. Preserving anonymity is vital to maintaining the judiciary’s role as a check on unchecked power and securing every American’s right to pursue legal remedies without fear of exposure or reprisal. The court must ensure that associational privacy is grounded in clear legal principle and unwavering commitment to constitutional freedoms.
Alan Sears is the founder and former president, CEO, and general counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom and a former federal prosecutor.