Justices grill NJ over ‘chilling’ subpoena that could expose pregnancy-center donors

⭐ Supreme Court signals support for a New Jersey faith-based pregnancy center fighting a state subpoena over alleged misleading practices.

⚖️ Justices raise donor-privacy fears, questioning whether New Jersey’s probe could chill First Amendment rights.

🔥 High-stakes clash over abortion politics as conservative and liberal justices alike express doubts about the state’s investigation.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court seemed likely on Tuesday to side with a faith-based pregnancy center raising First Amendment concerns about an investigation into whether it misled people to discourage abortions.

Rise of crisis pregnancy centers amid abortion restrictions

The facilities often known as “crisis pregnancy centers” have been on the rise in the U.S., especially since the Supreme Court overturned abortion as a nationwide right in 2022. Most Republican-controlled states have since started enforcing bans or restrictions on abortion, and some have steered tax dollars to the centers.

The conservative majority court has given abortion opponents some high-profile wins in recent years, but the free-speech arguments at the center of Tuesday's case also drew support from groups like the American Civil Liberties Union.

New Jersey subpoena triggers donor-privacy battle

The dispute started in New Jersey, when Democratic attorney general Matthew Platkin's consumer-protection division sent a subpoena to First Choice Women’s Resource Centers for details about donors and other information.

The state said it was probing whether the centers misled women into thinking they offered abortions so they could steer them toward having their babies instead.

First Choice pushed back, arguing the investigation was baseless and the demand for donor lists threatened their First Amendment rights. They tried to challenge the subpoena in federal court, but a judge found the case wasn’t yet far enough along. An appeals court agreed.

First Choice then turned to the Supreme Court, where a majority of the justices seemed to agree that they should be able to challenge the subpoena in federal court.

Justices question potential chilling effect on donors

“You don't think it might have an effect on potential future donors to the organization, to know that their name, phone number, address, et cetera, could be disclosed?” a dubious Chief Justice John Roberts asked an attorney for New Jersey.

The state argued that the information would only have been used to ask donors whether they had been deceived about First Choice's services. An attorney for New Jersey, Sundeep Iyer, said free-speech rights aren't at risk because the group has not even been required to turn over any information yet. A court order is required to enforce the subpoena.

Conservatives on the court seemed skeptical, as did liberal justice Elena Kagan. “An ordinary person, one of the funders for this organization or any similar organization, presented with this subpoena ... is not going to take that as very reassuring,” Kagan said.

N.J. warns of flood of lawsuits; supporters say threat is limited

New Jersey also argued that a ruling in favor of First Choice could allow a rush lawsuits from any of the thousands of businesses that get similar subpoenas. “Federal courts would potentially be inundated,” Iyer said.

An attorney for the Trump administration, which weighed in to support First Choice, countered that any impact would be relatively small since the decision would only apply to groups with similar First Amendment arguments.

First Choice said access to federal court is important in cases where government investigators are accused of misusing state power, and the ACLU agreed that subpoenas seeking donor information can scare away supporters even before they're enforced.

Erin Hawley, an attorney for the conservative Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, said state investigations can hurt advocacy groups with unpopular points of view. “It is a broad non-ideological issue that really does transcend ideological boundaries,” she said.

Aimee Huber, executive director of First Choice, said that if the court rules in their favor she hopes other, largely Democratic-aligned states, would “back off” their own investigations of pregnancy centers.

The Supreme Court is expected to decide the case in the coming months.