The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Dec. 2 in a case centered on the First Amendment rights of pro-life pregnancy centers. During Tuesday’s hearing, the justices appeared poised to side with First Choice Resource Centers—a group of New Jersey pro-life centers—on their contention that the state attorney general encroached on the group’s First Amendment rights.
Tuesday marked the latest milestone in a two-year long battle that began when New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin issued a subpoena ordering First Choice Resource Centers to hand over 10 years’ worth of private documents, including donors’ names and personnel information.
When the subpoena was issued in November 2023, Alliance Defending Freedom stepped in, asserting that the order was unlawful, as well as “wide-ranging, unfounded, and burdensome.” A district court then dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, and nearly two years of appeals by ADF and First Choice finally resulted in the Supreme Court agreeing to hear the case.
Since 2023, arguments over the subpoena have centered largely on whether it was self-executing—meaning it would automatically threaten consequences if disobeyed—or not. ADF argued that the subpoena was unlawful, even if it wasn’t self-executing. “First Choice’s associational interests were harmed the moment it received a coercive subpoena demanding names on pain of contempt,” ADF lawyer Erin Hawley argued on Tuesday. “This is troubling irrespective of whether the subpoena is self-executing. Even an unenforceable threat may chill First Amendment freedoms.”
Many of the justices seemed to be sympathetic to her argument, including Chief Justice John Roberts, who noted that such a subpoena could influence future donors, knowing that their personal information may be disclosed.
Both ADF and First Choice Executive Director Aimee Huber have pointed out that the state attorney’s general’s office seems to be attacking the centers because they’re pro-life. “Our state’s government has done everything they could to make New Jersey a sanctuary state for abortion,” said Huber. “Since pregnancy centers like ours do not perform or refer for abortion, we are targets for a government that disagrees with our views.”
Hawley, who is leading ADF’s efforts in the case, agreed. “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 to disclose donor identities and contact information, and First Choice is entitled to vindicate those rights in federal court.”
A decision from the court is expected in late June or early July.
Meanwhile, Huber says that although First Choice did not go looking for a fight, they will stand for their First Amendment rights. “It is our hope that our efforts will result in protections for pregnancy centers around the country,” she said. “This legal battle is never something we thought we would be involved in. … The women and the families we serve are worth this battle.”
