Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) exists to “advance every person’s God-given right to live and speak the truth.” Through litigation, advocacy and legal education, the organization works to protect First Amendment rights, including free speech, religious liberty and freedom of association. That mission also informs ADF’s approach to donor privacy, as explained in a recent interview with Gabriella McIntyre, legal counsel for ADF’s Center for Life.
Charitable giving is one of the ways Americans exercise their constitutional rights. When individuals donate to a nonprofit, they are supporting a mission, set of beliefs or cause they value. The ability to do so privately is especially important for organizations that advocate for views that may be unpopular or controversial, according to ADF.
“Without the freedom to associate, and in particular, the freedom to associate privately, dissonant views, for example, minority views, would be completely quashed out of society,” McIntyre said.
Freedom of speech, religious liberty and freedom of association are core protections found in the First Amendment. The ability to gather, support organizations and advance shared beliefs depends in part on individuals being free to associate without undue government interference.
A central concern for ADF is what courts have described as a “chilling effect” on First Amendment rights. The idea that government action can deter lawful participation in protected activity even without direct penalties. ADF says government demands for donor information can discourage individuals from supporting nonprofits, even when that information is never made public.
The mere existence of a government demand for donor identities can influence participation decisions, McIntyre said.
“It’s basically deterring individuals from wanting to associate with an organization,” she said.
McIntyre points to NAACP v. Alabama as a foundational example. In that case, Alabama sought membership lists of the NAACP during the civil rights era. The Supreme Court recognized that compelled disclosure could expose members to harassment and retaliation and held that such demands are subject to heightened constitutional scrutiny under freedom of association protections.
The case illustrates, McIntyre said, that disclosure requests can burden constitutional rights even before enforcement occurs. The possibility of exposure, she said, may itself deter participation.
ADF’s commitment to donor privacy is also reflected in its role as legal counsel in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Davenport.
The case arose after the New Jersey attorney general issued a broad subpoena seeking extensive records from the pregnancy resource center, including donor-related information. ADF said the request burdened the organization’s First Amendment rights and raised concerns about government scrutiny of organizations based on their viewpoints.
The subpoena sought wide-ranging materials with limited justification, McIntyre said.
“When you have absolutely no reason for the investigation other than what seems like a pretextual attempt to infringe on the constitutional rights and the mission of an organization, that is going to be looked at with heightened scrutiny by the courts,” she said.
The Supreme Court held that the First Choice Women’s Resource Center could challenge the subpoena in federal court before complying, allowing pre-enforcement judicial review of First Amendment claims. ADF views the decision as a critical procedural safeguard for nonprofits seeking to challenge government actions that may burden constitutional rights.
Philanthropy Roundtable shares that perspective. As our Senior Vice President of Public Affairs Claudia Cummings wrote in the Washington Times, “Importantly, the court affirmed that constitutional rights are not protected if citizens must first surrender them in order to defend them.”
Government officials have responsibilities to investigate fraud and protect consumers. However, those responsibilities must be carried out in ways that respect constitutional protections. When a government demand burdens First Amendment rights, McIntyre said, officials must demonstrate a legitimate governmental interest and that the request is appropriately tailored to that purpose.
This framework is intended to ensure legitimate investigations can proceed while preventing overly broad or intrusive demands for donor information or internal records that implicate freedom of association.
Beyond constitutional doctrine, McIntyre said broad information demands can have practical consequences for nonprofits and their supporters. Uncertainty around donor disclosure may affect donors, volunteers, staff and partner organizations who may hesitate to engage if they are unsure how their information will be used.
The burden also falls on organizations themselves. Responding to expansive subpoenas can require significant time, funding and staff capacity that would otherwise support their mission. For smaller nonprofits, these demands can be especially disruptive.
In donor privacy litigation, McIntyre said, organizations across the ideological spectrum—including religious organizations, civil liberties groups and LGBTQ advocacy organizations—have raised similar concerns about government disclosure demands. If government actors can target or scrutinize organizations on one end of the ideological spectrum, she said, similar risks could extend to others as well.
“First Amendment rights are important for everyone to defend, regardless of where they fall on the ideological spectrum, because they affect everyone.”
For ADF, donor privacy is not about advancing one viewpoint over another. It is about preserving constitutional rights that allow individuals and organizations of all perspectives to participate freely in civic and charitable life.
As debates over nonprofit regulation, donor disclosure and government oversight continue, ADF expects freedom of association to remain a significant legal issue.
McIntyre said she is closely watching how state officials and legislatures use their authority to investigate and regulate nonprofits, particularly when those actions affect First Amendment freedoms.
Despite ongoing concerns, she expressed optimism about recent court decisions protecting constitutional rights.
“Individuals have a right to be able to associate with the causes that they believe in without fear of government harassment,” she said.
For ADF, donor privacy is about more than anonymity. It is about preserving the freedom of Americans to support the causes they believe in and take part in civic life without undue interference.
