The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a closely watched case examining whether faith-based pregnancy resource centers can challenge intrusive state investigations in federal court, with justices appearing sympathetic to the centers' claims that New Jersey's attorney general violated First Amendment protections through politically motivated demands for donor information.
First Choice Women's Resource Centers, a network of five pro-life pregnancy centers in New Jersey, sued after Attorney General Matthew Platkin issued an administrative subpoena in November 2023 demanding names, phone numbers, addresses and employment information for nearly five thousand donors, along with ten years of internal confidential documents. Platkin claimed the investigation targeted potential consumer fraud, though he had received zero complaints from clients against First Choice.
"New Jersey's attorney general is targeting First Choice—a ministry that provides parenting classes, free ultrasounds, baby clothes, and more to its community—simply because of its pro-life views. The Constitution protects First Choice and its donors from demands by a hostile state official."
The technical legal question centers on whether First Choice must wait for state courts to fully adjudicate Platkin's enforcement efforts before seeking federal court intervention, or whether the mere issuance of the subpoena creates sufficient injury to proceed immediately in federal court. Lower courts sided with New Jersey, but multiple Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism during Tuesday's arguments about forcing the centers to navigate prolonged state proceedings while facing threats of contempt and potential loss of operating licenses.
Justice Clarence Thomas pressed New Jersey's counsel about whether the state had any basis to believe First Choice was deceiving donors or clients, eliciting the admission that no specific complaints had been filed. Thomas characterized initiating an investigation based solely on reviewing the organization's website as a burdensome way to find out if someone had confusing messaging. Chief Justice John Roberts appeared incredulous that New Jersey officials believed donor disclosure demands would have no chilling effect on future contributions to pro-life organizations.
The case draws heavily on the Supreme Court's 2021 decision in Americans for Prosperity Foundation against California, which struck down mandatory donor disclosure requirements on First Amendment grounds. Multiple religious and advocacy organizations filed friend-of-the-court briefs supporting First Choice, warning that allowing states to demand donor information through investigatory subpoenas would enable harassment campaigns against disfavored viewpoints across the ideological spectrum.
New Jersey argued the subpoena is not self-executing, meaning Platkin must obtain court enforcement orders before compelling compliance. However, even Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, generally sympathetic to New Jersey's arguments, questioned whether First Choice would be precluded from pursuing First Amendment claims in federal court once state proceedings concluded. New Jersey's attorney conceded they believed federal court access would indeed be blocked, a damaging admission that garnered visible sympathy from justices.
Alliance Defending Freedom represents First Choice, with attorney Erin Hawley arguing before the court. The organization emphasized that pregnancy resource centers serve tens of thousands of New Jersey residents annually, providing pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, baby supplies, parenting classes and medical services at no cost. A decision favoring First Choice would strengthen protections for nonprofits nationwide against state officials using regulatory power to suppress disfavored speech. The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling by late June or early July 2026.
