Three-year effort by New Jersey officials to investigate a network of Christian anti-abortion pregnancy centers accused of exploiting anti-abortion pregnancy rates deceptive practices ended up before the U.S. Supreme Court on December 2, 2025, when justices heard arguments about the limited question of jurisdiction whether the case belongs in state or federal court.
Since 2023, attorneys for First Choice Women’s Resource Centers have been fighting a subpoena issued by New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin for a wide range of the nonprofit’s documents and communications, including the names of donors.
In New Jersey, state courts have the authority to hear subpoena disputes. But First Choice filed a lawsuit in federal court to block enforcement. She argued that the subpoena unconstitutionally restricts her rights to free speech and association and that federal courts should decide constitutional issues.
On December 2, First Choice’s attorney Erin Morrow Hawley urged the justices to protect donors’ privacy, consider Platkin’s motives and consider his “coercive” subpoena a violation of the First Amendment. Such a ruling would reverse previous decisions by a U.S. federal judge and a federal appeals panel that the case should remain in state court, at least until a state judge decides whether First Choice’s noncompliance warrants sanctions.
“The Attorney General of New Jersey issued a sweeping subpoena ordering – under penalty of contempt – that First Choice produce the names, addresses and phone numbers of donors so that his office could contact and interview them,” Hawley said, adding: “This is the context of a hostile attorney general who has issued a consumer warning, urged New Jersey residents to be wary of pregnancy centers, and launched a strike force against them has composed.”
Hawley is a former law clerk to Chief Justice John Roberts. Vivek Suri, assistant attorney general at the U.S. Department of Justice, joined Hawley in arguing on behalf of First Choice, saying people with a constitutional challenge always have standing in federal court.
Sundeep Iyer, chief counsel to New Jersey Attorney General Platkin, warned that limiting constitutional challenges solely to federal judges would clog the courts and represent “a pretty dramatic change in historical practice.” Platkin’s office alone has issued more than 500 subpoenas this year to people and companies it is investigating, while Google received about 50,000 subpoenas last year, Iyer added.
“State and local governments issue tens of thousands of subpoenas each year, but the federal government’s theory would risk turning many of these ordinary subpoena disputes into federal cases,” Iyer said. “Even without a First Amendment claim, that would be a remarkable break with history and tradition. No court has accepted that theory, and this court should not be the first.”
The case made for unusual allies, with groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression siding with the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Christian legal advocacy group where Hawley works. In an August 2025 amicus short, the ACLU and the foundation raised concerns about “censorship by intimidation” and warned that authorities of all political persuasions are increasingly using their powers, including subpoenas, to clamp down on unfavorable speech as society becomes increasingly polarized.
On December 2, both sides strayed from the jurisdictional issue for more than 90 minutes and the judges bombarded the lawyers with a steady stream of questions.
The justices considered the purpose of New Jersey Attorney General Platkin’s request for donor records (to see whether donors believed their contributions were going to an abortion rights group) and whether compliance with subpoenas is mandatory (no, unless a judge orders compliance). The lawyers also debated the “degree of coldness” that could deter donors and whether a request letter instead of a subpoena would have led to the same lawsuit.
They grappled with whether the mere receipt of a subpoena can cause “imminent harm” or constitute a “credible threat,” when courts have not yet punished a non-compliant recipient – and may never do so. First Choice’s lawyers argued that they have been harmed by the costs of the legal battle, the expected loss of charitable contributions from donors fearful of disclosure, and possible regulatory retaliation if they do not comply with the subpoena. New Jersey Attorney General Platkin’s team had called claims of such damages speculative.
Some judges’ opinions seemed clear in their questioning.
Judge Clarence Thomas asked Iyer whether investigators had received reports of deceptive practices by First Choice, and Iyer admitted that they had not.
“You say you have no complaints. But you have previously looked at the website and its material and you believe it could have been misleading,” Thomas said.
Subpoenaing donor information “just seems like a tricky way to find out if someone has a confusing website,” he added.
Tax law requires charities to identify major donors on tax returns to maintain their tax-exempt status. That law also exists challenged in federal court in Ohio.
Hawley urged the justices to reject Iyer’s contention that subpoenas are voluntary, negotiable and not intimidating.
Subpoenas “would terrify normal donors, mom-and-pop donors,” Hawley said. “If you look at the allegations in this case, some donors are giving as little as $10. Those people will be concerned about an attorney general, the nation’s top law enforcement official, demanding their names, phone numbers, addresses and places of work so he can contact them about a donor website.”
First Choice has five centers in Jersey City, Montclair, Morristown, Newark and New Brunswick, New Jersey.
A decision is expected before the summer.
This story was originally reported by Dana DiFilippo for the New Jersey Monitor on December 2, 2025. New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. If you have any questions, please contact editor Terrence T. McDonald: [email protected].
#Antiabortion #pregnancy #centers #case #Jersey #U.S #Supreme #Court