The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that crisis pregnancy centers retain broad protection against donor disclosure requirements, strengthening free speech rights for groups receiving financial support while raising constitutional barriers to government investigations of nonprofit funding.
The decision centers on First Choice, a chain of crisis pregnancy centers that challenged a California law requiring nonprofits to disclose their major donors when subpoenaed. First Choice argued that the mere threat of a subpoena deters donors from contributing, chilling their associational freedoms protected under the First Amendment.
All nine justices agreed that compulsory donor disclosure poses serious constitutional problems. The Court found California's approach violated free speech protections by potentially exposing donors to harassment, intimidation, or retaliation. The justices rejected the state's argument that investigating these centers justified the disclosure mandate.
This ruling expands donor privacy protections significantly. Previously, courts had allowed some donor disclosure in limited contexts tied to campaign finance enforcement. This decision extends those privacy safeguards to nonprofits opposing state regulations, creating broader immunity from financial transparency requirements.
The practical effect limits government oversight of crisis pregnancy centers, facilities that typically oppose abortion and counsel women against the procedure. States seeking to investigate these organizations now face constitutional obstacles when subpoenaing donor lists. The ruling also affects other nonprofits and advocacy groups seeking to shield their funding sources from public view.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh's majority opinion emphasized that associational rights protect donors even when groups engage in activities the government disfavors. The unanimous outcome reflects broad judicial concern about chilling donor participation through disclosure threats, transcending typical ideological divisions on the Court.
The decision reflects a conservative-dominated Supreme Court increasingly protective of free speech claims involving conservative causes. It potentially shields donors to various ideological groups from transparency while making government investigations of nonprofit activities substantially harder. The ruling underscores the Court's commitment to donor anonymity as a core First Amendment value.