Supreme Court to examine New Jersey's subpoena of faith-based pregnancy centers

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Tuesday regarding a subpoena issued to a New Jersey faith-based nonprofit that operates crisis pregnancy centers. The appeal has unexpectedly united civil rights advocates with prominent conservative organizations.

First Choice Womens Resource Centers is asking the 6-3 conservative Supreme Court to overturn a federal appeals court ruling that required the nonprofit to continue addressing the subpoena in state court, rather than seeking early intervention in federal court.

In 2023, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, a Democrat, issued the subpoena as part of an investigation into potential violations of consumer fraud laws by the nonprofit. While the centers oppose abortion, state officials argued that their advertising may have led some clients to believe abortion services were available at the facilities.

The subpoena sought to examine whether the centers or their staff engaged in misrepresentations or other prohibited conduct. It requested access to advertisements, donor solicitations, and the identities of licensed medical personnel.

Amid ongoing sharp differences between red and blue states on issues like abortion, immigration, and LGBTQ rights, the nonprofit has contended that overzealous state officials could target both liberal and conservative groups through subpoenas. First Choice argues that federal courts should have the ability to review these subpoenas at an early stage.

The organization claims the subpoena, which requests extensive donor information, infringes on First Amendment rights. In written arguments, First Choice stated, The targets of state subpoenas extend far beyond pregnancy centers. When subpoenas violate the federal Constitution, these groups should not be relegated to state court to enforce their rights.

The case has drawn support from an unusual mix of groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, the Conference of Catholic Bishops, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, joined by the ACLU, noted that subpoenas requesting sensitive donor information can chill a disfavored speakers protected associations long before enforcement.

The type of subpoena in question is not self-executing, meaning Platkin would still need a court order to enforce it. New Jersey courts have not yet compelled the production of documents. Therefore, the Supreme Court case focuses less on the content of the subpoena and more on whether groups can challenge it in federal court at an early stage.

Platkin has argued that First Choices request for federal review is premature. A divided 3rd Circuit court agreed, ruling last year that the case was not yet ready for federal consideration. He warned that siding with the nonprofit could turn every routine subpoena dispute into a federal case.

Key legal context includes a 2021 Supreme Court decision that invalidated a California rule requiring charities to disclose donor names, and a landmark 1958 Civil Rights-era ruling where the Court blocked an Alabama subpoena demanding the NAACP reveal its membership list, citing fears of retaliation.

The Trump administration supports the pregnancy centers, arguing that the nonprofit faces a real threat if required to disclose documents. However, it has distinguished its own federal subpoenas, which it says are subject to different rules.

New Jerseys Attorney General countered that federal agencies seem to welcome early federal court review of state subpoenas, but not for their own administrative subpoenas. Platkin stated that the federal government demands a bespoke exception for its own administrative subpoenas.

Author: Sophia Brooks