In a high-profile legal dispute with potential national implications, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is urging the Supreme Court to block a New Jersey subpoena seeking donor information from a religious pregnancy center network.

According to CNA, the legal challenge involves a religious nonprofit resisting a state attorney general’s attempt to collect sensitive internal data, raising significant First Amendment concerns about speech, religion, and association.

First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a pro-life organization based in New Jersey, is the target of an investigation by state Attorney General Matthew Platkin. As part of a consumer protection probe, Platkin issued a subpoena requesting the center’s donor lists and internal documents.

Bishops say privacy rights are under threat

This move sparked alarm among religious groups, including the U.S. bishops, who joined a broad coalition supporting the center’s petition before the U.S. Supreme Court. In a legal brief, the Conference argued that the state’s actions undermine religious liberty and could have a chilling effect on faith-based giving and operations.

The bishops emphasized that requiring churches or religious nonprofits to disclose donor information exposes their internal functioning, potentially deterring individuals from supporting causes aligned with their faith. They warned that such a precedent could lead to broader government pressure on religious institutions.

In their brief, the bishops wrote that forcing these disclosures “reveals private information about a church’s internal operations” and may prompt organizations to change their financial methods out of concern for legal scrutiny or public backlash.

Case draws a diverse range of supporters

The bishops didn’t act alone. Their concerns were echoed by a coalition that spans across political and ideological lines. Among the groups urging the Court to intervene are the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, members of Congress, Democrats for Life, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Additional filings in support of First Choice came from the state of Florida, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the nonprofit Free Speech group, NetChoice. Each emphasized different facets of constitutional protections they believe are at risk if the subpoena proceeds.

Religious freedom advocates argue that the implications go far beyond the New Jersey case and could affect religious and ideological groups nationwide. Central to their argument is that compelled disclosure violates multiple rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Legal team argues for First Amendment defense

Erin Hawley, a senior attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom, is representing First Choice. She argued that the organization and its supporters are being subjected to what she described as a politically motivated inquiry that infringes upon their constitutional protections.

“The Constitution protects First Choice and its donors from demands by a hostile state official to disclose their identities,” Hawley said, “and First Choice is entitled to vindicate those rights in federal court.”

The case raises questions about whether state governments can compel religious and advocacy organizations to provide sensitive internal data without crossing the bounds of constitutional protections.

Bishops warn of potential lasting impact

The U.S. bishops cautioned that if the Court does not intervene, it could pave the way for government overreach into the operations of religious entities. According to their brief, this approach poses risks for organizations of all beliefs and missions whenever their objectives don’t align with prevailing social norms.

“Coercive tactics could be used against religious groups of all creeds, social views, and political persuasions,” the bishops stated. They warned that faith-based missions deviating from current cultural standards could face similar efforts to “interfere, redirect, chill, or quash” religious expression.

The bishops also urged the Supreme Court to reaffirm legal precedents that shield religious groups from compelled disclosure and governmental intrusion into their associational activities and internal decisions.

Supreme Court’s decision could have wide effects

Legal observers say the case could influence future regulatory approaches to religious and nonprofit groups. If the Court sides with New Jersey, states may have broader authority to demand internal records, even if it affects constitutionally protected activities.

However, a ruling in favor of First Choice could strengthen protections for religious and ideological organizations, confirming that internal operations and donor affiliations remain beyond the reach of government inquiries in the absence of compelling interest.

At stake is not just the privacy of donors but what many groups view as the foundational freedom to practice religion and advocate for particular views without fear of government retaliation or exposure.