The Supreme Court held unanimously on Wednesday that a chain of faith-based antiabortion pregnancy centers can mount a federal court challenge to a subpoena for its donors that it claims is part of an intimidation campaign by New Jersey officials hostile to its views on abortion.
The justices sided with First Choice Women’s Resource Centers Inc., which claimed the request by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin (D) chilled its First Amendment rights to speech and association with donors because disclosure might make supporters leery of contributing money.
The case tested a technical legal issue, but nonprofits and advocacy groups across the ideological spectrum followed it closely because the outcome could affect their own ability to thwart what they see as overreach by state officials.
In briefs submitted to the court, a number of organizations noted that having an avenue to fight politically motivated investigations was crucial for nonprofits and other advocacy-based groups.
Among them was the American Civil Liberties Union, which publicly acknowledged it did not fall on the same side as First Choice when it came to abortion policy but signed on to an amicus brief, saying that such broad subpoenas could “put all advocacy at risk.”
The case began in 2023, when Platkin issued his subpoena as part of an investigation into whether First Choice was deceiving clients and donors by falsely suggesting it offered abortion referrals. A state probe found some First Choice client-facing websites and donor pages elided or obscured its antiabortion mission. First Choice denies any wrongdoing.
First Choice, which has five centers in New Jersey, bills itself as a “network of clinics providing the best care and most up-to-date information on your pregnancy and pregnancy options.”
First Choice did not hand over any documents. Instead, the nonprofit sued in federal court, arguing that the attorney general’s request violated its First Amendment rights.
The question at the heart of the case is whether First Choice’s claims are “ripe.” To bring legal action in federal court, plaintiffs are required to show they have suffered an actual harm, not a hypothetical one.
The subpoena that Platkin issued for First Choice’s records requires a state court in New Jersey to order its enforcement. To date, a state judge has told First Choice to respond to the subpoena but has yet to demand that it actually turn over the records.
For that reason, New Jersey said First Choice could not demonstrate it had suffered a concrete harm. First Choice countered that the threat of the subpoena was chilling enough to meet the ripeness test. The justices embraced that argument.
Lower courts had ruled against First Choice before it appealed to the Supreme Court. The Trump administration has backed First Choice’s position in the case.
Like First Choice, many pregnancy centers across the United States, also called “crisis pregnancy centers,” are faith-based and operate with the goal of deterring women from having abortions. Center staff work to persuade women instead to carry their pregnancies to term and help them access basic resources to care for newborns.
After the fall of Roe v. Wade in 2022, conservative lawmakers bolstered the pregnancy centers’ work with public funding. At the same time, abortion rights advocates readied themselves to combat the centers’ messaging, which they say often blurs their antiabortion mission.
Those feuds have played out in courts across the country.
In February, a federal judge in Massachusetts dismissed a First Amendment lawsuit brought by a chain of pregnancy centers in the state. The chain sued Massachusetts officials and a reproductive rights organization in 2024 after the state launched a public campaign urging women to avoid pregnancy centers.
The post Supreme Court says antiabortion center can fight subpoena for donors’ names appeared first on Washington Post.
