People United for Privacy

SCOTUS decision in First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. NJ is huge. Despite the iconic SCOTUS decision in NAACP v. Alabama, and the more recent decision in Americans for Prosperity Fdn v. Bonta, many lower courts have continued to insist that compelled disclosure of one's affiliations is not a harm that can even support a challenge to the government's actions. Yesterday the Supreme Court firmly rejected that approach: "Demands for private donor information ... 'chill' protected 1st Amendment associational rights even when those demands contemplate disclosure only to government officials and not ‘the general public. ... "An injury in fact does not arise only when a defendant causes a tangible harm to a plaintiff, like a physical injury or monetary loss. It can also arise when a defendant burdens a plaintiff ’s constitutional rights. And our cases have long recognized that demands for a charity’s private member or donor information have just that effect." This is a huge win for privacy and freedom, a huge blow to those who seek to "cancel" individuals or intimidate them from participating in public debate with threats of government retaliation, direct or indirect.

"A long line of High Court precedents, going back to NAACP v. Alabama (1958), protect donor privacy under the First Amendment." @WSJ editorial on yesterday's ruling in First Choice v. Davenport: wsj.com/opinion/first-…

NAACP v. AL is indeed timeless (despite many scholars' claims to the contrary). The ruling expresses sacred First Am. principles that are neither temporally confined to the 50s & 60s, nor situationally limited to the Civil Rights Movement context within which they were decided.

“Across the country, threats against elected officials and other politically engaged Americans are on the rise,” Heather Lauer of @UniteForPrivacy writes.

Possibly bigger than the decision itself: a unanimous Court grounded its analysis of NJ’s donor list demand in NAACP v. Alabama, an opinion that privacy opponents have long sought to marginalize and limit to its historical circumstances.

Every state should pass the Personal Privacy Protection Act to prevent politically motivated demands for nonprofit donor lists.

"When a state demands a nonprofit’s donor list, that nonprofit has a right to challenge the demand in federal court. That’s an important safeguard, but it also underscores why strong protections are needed to prevent this kind of overreach in the first place" - PUFPF CEO @HeatherLauer. unitedforprivacy.com/supreme-court-…

"A milestone victory for donor privacy in the courts." The Supreme Court's unanimous decision in First Choice v. Davenport is a win for every nonprofit that cares about the privacy of its members.

In a 9-0 win for legal standing and freedom of association, SCOTUS held faith-based pregnancy centers can challenge New Jersey’s demand for confidential donor info. FIRE was proud to file an amicus brief with @ACLU and @ACLUNJ supporting First Choice Women’s Resource Centers.

The Personal Privacy Protection Act prevents government officials from demanding or publicly disclosing the names and personal information of nonprofit supporters, shielding donors from the kind of compelled exposure at issue in First Choice v. Davenport. Notably, New Jersey does not currently have these protections in place. These are core First Amendment rights, reaffirmed in NAACP v. Alabama and AFPF v. Bonta, yet some politicians continue to push disclosure anyway, which is why @UniteForPrivacy won’t stop until these protections are in place in all 50 states.

And “organizations span[ning] the ideological spectrum” confirm the reasonableness of the inferences our cases have drawn about the burdens that demands for private donor information inevitably impose on protected First Amendment rights. Groups ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the National Taxpayers Union Foundation to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have filed briefs in this case explaining that, “[e]ven if a subpoena targeting First Amendment activity is never enforced in court, [it] will give its targets a very good reason to clam up [and] give the target organization’s members and supporters a very good reason to abandon the cause.” --Supreme Court unanimous opinion today in First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Davenport

ICYMI: Aimee Huber told us how high the stakes were for her non-profit, when the New Jersey Attorney General harassed them. Today, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of First Choice Women's Resource Centers, enabling them to hold the Attorney General to account in federal court.

Our Senior Legal Fellow Zac Morgan from @WLF warned after oral argument that New Jersey was headed for trouble in this case: unitedforprivacy.com/first-thoughts…

Huge, unanimous win for the First Amendment and donor privacy:

Outdated laws, new technology, and a changing culture are putting Americans at risk. It's time for reform. washingtontimes.com/news/2026/apr/…

Interesting argument that the American Revolution succeeded bc they debated the Constitution behind closed doors and the French Revolution failed bc they did everything in public. Transparency isn’t a virtue in all times and places! See, Congress.

Link: washingtontimes.com/news/2026/apr/…

NEW: When political violence starts following Americans to their homes, it's time for privacy reforms to protect civic engagement.

Political violence is a crisis. Privacy reforms can be part of the solution. thehill.com/opinion/techno…

Laws banning so-called “dark money” are just censorship and mass surveillance by another name. unitedforprivacy.com/oregon-lawmake…