Why The Supreme Court Is Protecting Anonymous Giving

Summary

Morning Wire | Why The Supreme Court Is Protecting Anonymous Giving

Host: John Bickley (Daily Wire Executive Editor), Georgia Howe
Guest: Erin Hawley, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) Senior Counsel
Date: May 3, 2026
Episode Focus: Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling protecting donor privacy in the case of First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, and the broader legal and cultural implications.

---

Episode Overview

This Legal Wire edition dives into the Supreme Court’s landmark, unanimous decision in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin. The ruling protects the anonymity of donors to nonprofit organizations—specifically, those with potentially controversial viewpoints—from intrusive government subpoenas intended to expose contributors. Erin Hawley, who personally argued the case before the Court, explains what the decision means for donor privacy, federal vs. state court access, and free speech around sensitive causes.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Background and Context of the Case

• New Jersey Attorney General Actions (04:58):
  • Matthew Platkin, New Jersey AG, established a “Reproductive Rights Task Force” which aggressively targeted pro-life pregnancy centers.
  • Issued a consumer alert (edited by Planned Parenthood), then subpoenaed pregnancy center donor records, seeking names, addresses, and places of employment.
  • “He issued a consumer alert…because of all things, these pregnancy care centers don’t perform abortions…He actually workshopped that consumer alert to Planned Parenthood and accepted their edits. Just crazy stuff.” – Erin Hawley (05:03)

Supreme Court’s Decision

• Unanimous and Robust (04:11):
  • The Court issued a strong, unanimous ruling upholding First Amendment protections and associational rights, emphasizing that demands for donor names are inherently chilling.
  • “It says in no uncertain terms that what the New Jersey attorney general did…chilled First Choice’s associational rights. It made donors less likely to give…And that’s something the attorney general can’t do without a really good reason.” – Erin Hawley (04:22)

Legal Significance

• Federal Access and Section 1983 (07:26):
  • Central question: Can targets of such subpoenas access federal court, or must they contest in state court (where legal remedies are more limited)?
  • Section 1983 allows anyone whose constitutional rights are harmed by a state official to sue in federal court, yet the AG argued an exception should exist.
  • “Section 1983 is a federal statute that allows individuals whose constitutional rights have been infringed by any state official to sue in federal court…[The AG] was really arguing for an exception…that’s just absurd.” – Erin Hawley (07:35–08:21)

Precedent and Donor Privacy

• Historical and Broader Protection (09:10):
  • The Court reaffirmed and extended precedent from the NAACP v. Alabama case, saying modern donor disclosure demands are “inherently chilling” and subject to judicial scrutiny.
  • “Where you have a donor disclosure demand, that is inherently chilling, and that’s a big deal, because that means if a hostile state official requests your membership lists, if it requests your donor names, then you get to challenge that in federal court.” – Erin Hawley (09:21)

Real-Life Impacts

• Implications for All Americans (10:02):
  • Ruling protects not only pro-life donors but any American supporting a group with an unpopular view.
  • Without the ruling, state AGs could demand donor lists, “call up those donors and quiz them about their donation…what could possibly be more chilling?”
  • “This ruling…directly impacts, really, any American that’s ever wanted to donate to a cause or support an organization, perhaps one with an unpopular viewpoint.” – Erin Hawley (10:08)

Next Steps and Ongoing Litigation

• Narrow Ruling, Broader Hints (10:55):
  • Supreme Court only decided on federal court access; lower courts still to rule on the actual subpoena—but the Court sent strong signals upholding First Amendment burdens.
  • Donor disclosures could be allowed in rare cases (like election law), but only under “exacting scrutiny.”
  • “The court’s unanimous conclusion that first choices, First Amendment rights were burdened…the state has to have a really good reason to get that information. Here, we don’t think that exists.” – Erin Hawley (11:12)

Other Pro-Life and Supreme Court Cases

• Upcoming and Related Cases (12:28):
  • Watch the Fifth Circuit decision on Louisiana’s abortion regulations; ADF is co-counsel.
  • Recent Supreme Court decision against racial gerrymandering in Louisiana—a 6-3 decision disallowing race as a factor in congressional district drawing.
  • “The Supreme Court held that…you can’t, in fact, expressly consider race when drawing these sort of districts…is a good extension of the Supreme Court’s sort of principles that we want elections…to be based on neutral principles.” – Erin Hawley (13:35)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Donor Privacy Precedent:
  “The Supreme Court traces the history of donor privacy protections all the way back to the NAACP case…they say, in no uncertain terms…a donor disclosure demand, that is inherently chilling.” — Erin Hawley (09:14)

• On the Harassment by State Officials:
  “Hostile state officials cannot harass ideological opponents and send them subpoenas demanding their donor names unless they want to end up in federal court.” — Erin Hawley (03:44)

• On the Chilling Effect:
  “If you’re living in a state that disagrees with your view, the attorney general can…demand your name…his rationale was that he wanted to call up those donors and quiz them about their donation to First Choice. What could possibly be more chilling?” — Erin Hawley (10:31)

• On Broader Impact:
  “…this doesn’t just affect pro-life centers. This affects any group that holds an unpopular view in their state—if your attorney general dislikes you, this protects your right to association and speech.” (Summarized throughout discussion, esp. 10:08–11:00)

---

Important Timestamps

• 03:19–03:31 – Erin Hawley joins; opening overview of the case
• 04:11–04:50 – Unanimous Supreme Court ruling and its significance
• 05:00–05:32 – Background: New Jersey AG’s actions and Planned Parenthood involvement
• 07:26–08:48 – Section 1983, federal vs. state court access, and why this procedural question is crucial
• 09:10–09:54 – Donor privacy, NAACP precedent, and the chilling effect standard
• 10:02–10:50 – Real-world implications for all Americans’ rights to donate anonymously
• 11:12–12:13 – What’s next in the case and how the ruling shapes lower court considerations
• 12:28–13:10 – Related cases to watch: Louisiana/Fifth Circuit, abortion, and gerrymandering
• 13:31–14:17 – Racial gerrymandering, the Supreme Court’s neutral principles

---

Takeaways

• A landmark, unanimous Supreme Court victory affirming that government officials cannot use their power to target, chill, or intimidate nonprofit contributors through invasive donor disclosure demands.
• The decision strongly safeguards the First Amendment associational rights of all Americans, especially those supporting viewpoints unpopular with state authorities.
• It opens up federal courts for those harassed by state AGs while keeping strict scrutiny for when donor lists can be legally sought.
• The episode highlights how these legal battles have far-reaching consequences for free speech, privacy, and advocacy across ideological lines.

---

For listeners seeking a deeper understanding of recent Supreme Court trends and their real-life effects—especially issues of privacy, free expression, and the culture wars—this episode delivers clear explanations and key context directly from a lead litigator.

Transcript

[Stamps.com/Mint Mobile Advertiser]

Shipping, billing, admin, payroll, marketing. You're managing all the things, so why waste time sending important documents the old fashioned way? Mail and ship when you want, how you want with stamps.com print postage on demand 247 and schedule pickups from your office or home. Save up to 90% with automated rate shopping. That's why over 1 million small businesses trust stamps.com go to stamps.com and use code podcast to try stamps.com risk free for 60 days.

[Pregnancy Center Representative]

At First Choice, our mission is clear. We exist to encourage and equip women and men to make informed pregnancy decisions. I never thought that serving women in need would put me in the crosshairs of my own state's attorney general. And yet, here we are.

[Narrator/Host]

The U.S. supreme Court ruled this week on First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Platkin, a significant case that involved a state attorney general partnering with Planned Parenthood against pro life pregnancy centers. Among the actions of the AG were attacks on donor privacy.

[Interviewer/Host]

Did you have complaints that formed the basis of your concern about the fundraising activities here?

[Co-Host/Interviewer]

We certainly had complaints about crisis pregnancy

[Interviewer/Host]

centers that petitioned no about this crisis pregnancy center.

[Co-Host/Interviewer]

So I think we've been clear from the outset that we haven't had complaints

[Interviewer/Host]

about this specific so you had no basis to think that they were deceiving any of their contributors?

[Co-Host/Interviewer]

In this episode, we speak to Alliance Defending Freedom's Erin Hawley, who argued the case. Court to break down what happens next. I'm Daily Wire Executive Editor John Bickley with Georgia Howell. This is a Legal Wire edition of Morning Wire.

[ZipRecruiter Advertiser]

Have you ever interviewed someone who's eager to work and excited to learn all about a job? If you're hiring, you want a candidate who's passionate about your role. But you can't get that insight from a resume unless you post your job on ZipRecruiter. And now you can try it for free at ZipRecruiter.com wireless ZipRecruiter's advanced matching technology quickly connects you with qualified candidates who can share in their own words why they're interested in your role. Plus, their new feature highlights the most interested applicants first, helping you find the right fit faster. Find candidates who really want your job on ZipRecruiter. Four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within the first day. Try it for free at ZipRecruiter.com wire that's ZipRecruiter.com wire meet your match on ZipRecruiter the state of Colorado is at it again trying to silence free speech. A law in Colorado forces businesses to use customers preferred pronouns even if they're biologically inaccurate and even if using those incorrect pronouns would violate a person's religious beliefs or conscience. That's a violation of free speech. But as Colorado has proven time and again, it has little concern for the First Amendment. Alliance Defending Freedom is challenging the law on behalf of a Christian bookstore and a Colorado based sports apparel company, but a court recently ruled against them with ADF's help. They appealed the ruling and they'll continue fighting to ensure Colorado doesn't get away with this next attempt to skirt the First Amendment. Your gift helps protect free speech in cases like this all over the country. And for a limited time, your first gift to ADF is doubled by a special matching grant while funds last Text Wire Wire to 83848 or go to joinadf.comwire to have your gift doubled.

[John Bickley]

Joining us now to discuss the Supreme Court's latest decision for pro life advocates is Aaron Hawley, Alliance Defending Freedom of Counsel. Aaron, thanks for joining us.

[Erin Hawley]

Thanks so much for having me. So glad to be here.

[John Bickley]

So, first, you personally argued this case, so congratulations on the big win. First, top line, what do we need to know about this case going into this?

[Erin Hawley]

Sure. So I think the top line is that hostile state officials cannot harass ideological opponents and send them subpoenas demanding their donor names unless they want to end up in federal court, which is a really good ruling for, for nonprofits of all varieties, but especially the pregnancy care centers in this case.

[John Bickley]

Now, the ruling was unanimous, correct? I mean, this is a pretty big deal that we had agreement between the left and right on this case.

[Erin Hawley]

That's exactly right. And sometimes unanimous opinions are sort of milquetoast opinions. You don't really get a lot out of them because you have to get all of the justices to agree. But one of the amazing things about this opinion is that although it is unanimous, it is also a robust defense of the First Amendment. It says in no uncertain terms that what the New Jersey attorney general did here chilled First Choice's associational rights. It made donors less likely to give it, inhibited that relationship. And that's something the attorney general can't do without a really good reason. And he certainly can't avoid federal court if he does something like this.

[John Bickley]

For those who haven't tracked this case, what exactly did the New Jersey attorney general, Matthew Platkin, do in this case?

[Interviewer/Host]

Sure.

[Erin Hawley]

So it's sort of a parade of horribles. One of the very first things that the attorney General did when he took office was establish something that he called the Reproductive Rights Task Force. And he used this task force to go after pregnancy care centers. He issued a consumer alert against them because of all things. These pregnancy care centers don't perform abortions. No, heaven, heaven forbid. So the attorney General used that to go after them. He actually workshopped that consumer alert to Planned Parenthood and accepted their edits. Just crazy stuff.

[Co-Host/Interviewer]

Incredible. All right, so Planned Parenthood, a partner in this. This, as you. You characterize it, a harassment campaign, really. And First Choice, in the end, wins the argument. What were the key legal complaints you helped argue? Why did those win the day?

[Erin Hawley]

Sure. So. So this is sort of a. A naughty procedural case in that the question the Supreme Court was deciding was ultimately whether First Choice to be in federal court at all. So. So after issuing this consumer alert after harassing pregnancy care centers, the Attorney General also issued a subpoena demanding donor names, addresses, and their places of employment. So. So a really broad, invasive subpoena. And that sort of information, the court has held is protected by the First Amendment. But what Matthew Plotkin said is that, no, you don't get to get into federal court when I give you a subpoena. You have to go to state court first. And this gets. Gets really wonky. But the catch, if you go to state court first, then you'll almost certainly not be able to ever get into federal court because of something called preclusion. So even Justice Jackson, at oral argument, was really struck by this and accused the New Jersey Attorney General of making sure that First Choice couldn't get into federal court. So the narrow issue was, does this chill First Amendment rights? Do they get into federal court? And the Supreme Court was both adamant and unanimous on that point.

[John Bickley]

And this made this a particularly complex case. I mean, this is a state court versus supreme court power of the authority of an attorney general versus private entities. What was. You described it as sort of naughty, complex, complicated. What was difficult about the argument?

[Erin Hawley]

So I think the difficult thing was just sort of cutting through all of the procedure. But the. Once you got to sort of the precedents that the Supreme Court had already held, we think it's an easy case. So there's two things that were really important. So the Civil Rights Congress enacted something called section 1983. And section 1983 is a federal statute that allows individuals whose constitutional rights have been infringed by any state official to sue in federal court. And so the lower courts in this case, in the attorney General, were really arguing for an exception to that general rule. If your constitutional rights are violated, you get to get into federal court here. They said, that's not true. You have to go to state court first. So. So that we thought was. Was the first error, and then the second error was this real effort to circumscribe the First Amendment. The attorney general argued here that. That ordinary people wouldn't find a subpoena to be chilling. And. And that's just absurd. As the Supreme Court pointed out, the subpoena twice on its face threatens first choice with contempt. The attorney general. There were something over 20 briefs filed in five different courts in this case. The. The attorney general used every resource, every effort to go after first choices donors. There's no question they were chilled. And that's what the court found.

[John Bickley]

Yeah. And I wanted to talk specifically about the donor privacy aspect of this. There's a few layers here. Harassment of pregnancy centers sort of writ large.

[Co-Host/Interviewer]

We've seen this a lot from a lot of different angles. Then there's this donor privacy concern. Do you think this ruling helps really protect donor privacy in a way that's robust?

[Erin Hawley]

Absolutely. The Supreme Court traces the history of donor privacy protections all the way back to the NAACP case in which Alabama demanded, in efforts contrary to integration, that the NAACP turn over their donor names and membership names in that case. So the court traces that history, and then they say, in no uncertain terms, which they haven't quite been this explicit before, but they said, where you have a donor disclosure demand that is inherently chilling, and that's a big deal, because that means if a hostile state official requests your membership lists, if it requests your donor names, then you get to challenge that in federal court for, you

[Co-Host/Interviewer]

know, just sort of the average American out there. What. How does this potentially impact their life or some things that they're concerned about going forward?

[Erin Hawley]

Sure. So this ruling, we think, directly impacts, really, any American that's ever wanted to donate to a cause or support an organization, perhaps one with an unpopular viewpoint. In those instances, if you're living in a state that disagrees with your view, the attorney general can. Can send that organization a subpoena, and they can demand your name. If you're a member, they can. Your contact information. In this case, the attorney general demanded not only names, phone numbers, but as well, places of employment. And he actually represented that. He wanted to call up those donors and quiz them about their donation to First Choice. You know, what could possibly be more chilling? But. But after this ruling, those donors are protected. The organizations can go into federal court.

[John Bickley]

So clearly huge implications then. So where does this case go from here?

[Co-Host/Interviewer]

Sure.

[Erin Hawley]

So this case isn't over. The Supreme Court's question, as it says, was somewhat narrow. It was only deciding whether first choice gets to get into federal court. But there are several indications that hopefully the lower courts will pay attention to. One of those is the court's unanimous conclusion that first choices, First Amendment rights were burdened. The court clearly says that. Now for donor disclosure under the First Amendment, sometimes, if you think about, you know, the election context, sometimes disclosure is allowed by the First Amendment, but only if that disclosure meets something called exacting scrutiny. So the state has to have a really good reason to get that information here. We don't think that exists. In fact, there's a, there's a fantastic paragraph in the opinion which sort of mocks the attorney general's rationale for wanting these donor names. He says that he wants to talk to them because he's worried they might be misled and having thought they gave to a abortion center rather than a pregnancy center. But he cites the link in which they give, which has pictures of smiling babies and families, that there is no question that any first choice donor thought they were giving to anything other than a pregnancy care center.

[John Bickley]

Indeed, are there any other pro life related cases on the docket now that we should have on our radar to be seen by the high court or maybe on the state level are significant? This is obviously a big win for the pro life side. Do we have any other cases we should be watching?

[Erin Hawley]

Sure, sure. There are a couple. I would point your listeners to Louisiana and to the fifth Circuit. We are awaiting a decision. ADF represents Louisiana co counsel with them and are awaiting a decision from the Fifth Circuit on our request to stay the 2023 rems that the Biden administration took away, that last protection, that last remaining in person visit which provides crucial health safeguards for women. Without that visit, we don't know if they might have an ectopic pregnancy or be further along in gestation that they might have thought. Two different panels of the fifth Circuit have already found that removal to be unlawful. We're hoping that the fifth Circuit does that again soon.

[Co-Host/Interviewer]

Certainly a case we should be watching. Now.

[John Bickley]

Before you go, there was another big

[Co-Host/Interviewer]

decision that came down this week from the Supreme Court in Louisiana that had to do with the hot topic of redrawing congressional districts. This was a 6, 3 decision. But can you tell us any more about what this means in terms of how it affects other situations like in Virginia and potentially Florida?

[Erin Hawley]

Sure. So. So in the Louisiana case in particular, the question was a congressional map drawn in 2022, and the state had drawn that map in response to a federal court order, so had expressly relied on race, sort of done a racial gerrymander because the state was required to do so by a federal court order. The Supreme Court held that that violated the 14th Amendment, that you can't, in fact, expressly consider race when drawing these sort of districts. And it could have a major impact in other cases and I think is a good extension of the Supreme Court's sort of principles that we want elections as much as we want anything else to be based on neutral principles.

[John Bickley]

Well, another big week for the Supreme Court, which continues to really reshape the legal landscape in major ways. Aaron, thank you so much for coming on.

[Erin Hawley]

Thanks for having me. Appreciate it.

[Narrator/Host]

That was Alliance Defending Freedom's Erin Hawley. And this has been a Legal Wire edition of MORNING Wire.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile with a message for everyone paying big wireless way too much. Please, for the love of everything good in this world, stop with Mint. You can get premium wireless for just $15 a month, of course, if you enjoy overpaying. No judgments. But that's weird. Okay, one judgment anyway. Give it a try. @mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment of $45 for

[Stamps.com/Mint Mobile Advertiser]

3 month plan equivalent to $15 per month Required intro rate first 3 months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See full [e-mail].