Anti-Abortion Pregnancy Centers Take Case Against New Jersey to U.S. Supreme Court

New Jersey officials’ three-year effort to investigate a network of Christian anti-abortion pregnancy centers accused of using deceptive practices landed before the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 2, 2025, when justices heard arguments over the narrow jurisdictional question of whether the case belongs in state or federal court.

Since 2023, lawyers for First Choice Women’s Resource Centers have been fighting a subpoena New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin issued for a wide array of the nonprofit’s records and communications, including donors’ names.

In New Jersey, state courts have the power to handle subpoena disputes. But First Choice sued in federal court to block enforcement, saying that the subpoena unconstitutionally chills its free-speech and free-association rights and that federal courts should decide constitutional challenges.

On Dec. 2, First Choice’s attorney Erin Morrow Hawley urged the justices to protect donor privacy, consider Platkin’s motives, and consider his “coercive” subpoena a violation of the First Amendment. Such a ruling would reverse earlier 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 commanding—on pain of contempt—that First Choice produced donor names, addresses, and phone numbers so his office could contact and question them,” said Hawley, adding, “This is the context of a hostile attorney general who has issued a consumer alert, urged New Jerseyans to beware of pregnancy centers, and assembled a strike force against them.”

Hawley is a former law clerk of Chief Justice John Roberts. Vivek Suri, assistant to the Solicitor General in the U.S. Department of Justice, joined Hawley in arguing on First Choice’s behalf, saying people with a constitutional challenge always have standing in federal court.

Sundeep Iyer, the New Jersey Attorney General Platkin’s chief counsel, warned that restricting constitutional challenges solely to federal judges would clog the courts and represent “a pretty dramatic sea change in historical practice.” Platkin’s office alone has issued more than 500 subpoenas this year to people and companies it’s investigating, while Google got about 50,000 subpoenas last year, Iyer added.

“State and local governments issue tens of thousands of subpoenas every 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 from 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 brief, the ACLU and the foundation fretted about “censorship by intimidation” and warned that authorities of all political persuasions increasingly are using their powers, including subpoenas, to squelch disfavored speech as society grows more polarized.

Over 90 minutes of arguments Dec. 2, both sides strayed far from the jurisdictional issue and the justices peppered attorneys with a steady stream of questions.

The justices mulled the purpose of New Jersey Attorney General Platkin’s request for donor details (to see if donors thought their contributions were going to an abortion-rights group) and whether compliance with subpoenas is mandatory (no, unless a judge orders compliance). The jurists also debated the “degree of chill” that might deter donors and if a letter of request instead of a subpoena would have sparked the same court fight.

They wrangled with whether the mere receipt of a subpoena can cause “imminent injury” or pose a “credible threat,” if courts have not yet sanctioned—and might not ever—a noncompliant recipient. First Choice attorneys argued that they suffered harms in the cost of the legal fight, anticipated losses of charitable contributions from donors who fear public disclosure, and possible regulatory retaliation if they don’t comply with the subpoena. New Jersey Attorney General Platkin’s team had called claims of such harms speculative.

Some justices’ opinions seemed clear in their questioning.

Justice Clarence Thomas asked Iyer whether investigators had received any reports of deceptive practices by First Choice, and Iyer conceded they had not.

“You say you have no complaints. But rather you looked at the website and their materials, and you think it could have been misleading,” Thomas said.

Subpoenaing donor information “just seems to be a burdensome way to find out whether someone has a confusing website,” he added.

Tax law requires charitable organizations to identify major donors in tax filings in order to retain their tax-exempt status. That law also is being challenged in federal court in Ohio.

Hawley urged the justices to reject Iyer’s claim 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 gave as little as $10. Those folks are going to be worried about a state attorney general, the highest law enforcement officer in the country, demanding their names, phone numbers, addresses, places of employment so that 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 by the summer.

This story was originally reported by Dana DiFilippo for the New Jersey Monitor on Dec. 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. Contact Editor Terrence T. McDonald for questions: info@newjerseymonitor.com.

The post Anti-Abortion Pregnancy Centers Take Case Against New Jersey to U.S. Supreme Court appeared first on Rewire News Group.