The Supreme Court sided with a faith-based pregnancy center that challenged New Jersey’s investigation of its practices, granting the center access to federal court to dispute a state-issued subpoena. The ruling came unanimously on Wednesday and was described as a procedural victory for First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, which has been fighting the subpoena while the underlying case remains unresolved.
The Supreme Court’s decision allows First Choice to sue over the subpoena issued in connection with a New Jersey probe of whether the organization misled people who sought its help to discourage abortions. The justices’ ruling does not settle the merits of the state’s investigation or the central allegations at issue, but it clears the way for the center to pursue federal review of the subpoena itself.
First Choice is represented by lawyer Erin Hawley, who argued the case with the Alliance Defending Freedom. Hawley said the group looks forward to taking up the case in federal court if New Jersey’s attorney general decides to “continue these efforts on remand.”
The dispute has drawn support from both abortion-rights and anti-abortion legal allies around the specific constitutional issue of donor information. The American Civil Liberties Union, which supports abortion rights, backed First Choice’s First Amendment concerns, arguing that subpoenas seeking donor information can discourage supporters from donating or speaking out.
In New Jersey, the investigation began after state Democratic-leaning leadership sought to protect abortion access while also examining whether “crisis pregnancy centers” mislead people about what services they offer. The facilities — sometimes described as “crisis pregnancy centers” — provide prenatal care and aim to steer people toward carrying pregnancies to term, according to the description included in the case record summarized by AP.
According to the report, then-when-Democratic Attorney General Matthew Platkin sent a subpoena seeking donor lists and other information from First Choice. First Choice pushed back, arguing that the investigation was baseless and that the demand for donor lists threatened First Amendment rights to free speech and association, in part by raising fears that supporters could be intimidated or identified.
First Choice tried to challenge the subpoena in federal court, but the effort was rejected at an earlier stage when a judge concluded the case was not yet far enough along. An appeals court agreed, and the center then turned to the Supreme Court.
The state argued that any information sought would only be used to ask donors whether they had been deceived about First Choice’s services, and that the subpoena could not have threatened First Amendment rights because First Choice had not yet been required to turn over any information. The state also argued that allowing First Choice to sue could open the door to lawsuits from thousands of similarly situated businesses that receive comparable subpoenas.
The Trump administration also weighed in on behalf of First Choice. The Justice Department argued that any impact would be relatively small because the Supreme Court ruling would apply only to groups with similar First Amendment arguments, while leaving other subpoena disputes to be resolved under their particular circumstances.
The Supreme Court’s decision comes amid a broader legal and political fight over abortion-related services and investigations, as Republican-controlled states have sought to restrict abortion and have sometimes directed tax dollars to pregnancy centers. At the same time, Democratic-leaning states have investigated whether the centers mislead people, including by implying they offer abortions.