Supreme Court Allows Faith-Based Pregnancy Center to Challenge NJ Subpoena

On April 24, 2026 the Court issued a unanimous opinion, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, permitting First Choice Women’s Resource Centers to sue over a New Jersey subpoena. The ruling addresses only whether the case is reviewable in federal court, not the merits of the fraud allegations.

CNN

After the 2022 overturn of Roe v. Wade, states began probing crisis pregnancy centers for fraud claims. In 2023 New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin subpoenaed First Choice for donor lists and advertising, alleging deceptive messaging about abortion services.

CNN

The case pits First Choice against New Jersey’s AG office. Supporters include the U.S. Chamber, Catholic Bishops, the ACLU, and 19 Republican AGs; opposition includes the National Association of Counties, the Federation of State Medical Boards, and 20 Democratic AGs.

The Hill

First Choice runs five New Jersey centers and reports serving over 36,000 clients since 1985. The subpoena sought donor-identifying data and marketing materials used for fundraising.

The Hill

Attorney General Jennifer Davenport said the ruling only permits a federal challenge and reaffirms the state’s fraud-enforcement role. First Choice director Aimee Huber called the subpoena an aggressive demand that threatens its mission. Justice Department noted the impact will likely be limited to groups with similar First-Amendment claims.

The Hill

Democratic officials, the National Association of Counties and the Federation of State Medical Boards argue the decision could hinder fraud investigations and may spark a flood of lawsuits that strain state resources.

The Hill

Lower courts found the case not ripe because the subpoena had not been enforced; the Supreme Court rejected that view, allowing review. The state warns the ruling could open the floodgates for challenges, while the Justice Department expects modest effects. No data yet show how many similar subpoenas will be contested.

CNN

The opinion extends NAACP v. Alabama, reinforcing that compelled donor disclosure can chill associational speech. It may shift the balance between state investigative power and protections for religious or ideological groups.

Deseret News

• “ “Since the 1950s, this Court has confronted one official demand after another like the Attorney General’s.” — Justice Neil Gorsuch

Deseret News

• “For more than two years, Attorney General Platkin targeted First Choice with aggressive demands for sensitive documents, including our donors’ identities,” — Aimee Huber, Executive Director, First Choice

The Hill

• “Today’s procedural decision holds only that First Choice can pursue its challenge to our subpoena, not that its challenge should prevail,” — Jennifer Davenport, New Jersey Attorney General

The Hill

• “kind of obvious that there’s some kind of objective chill from a subpoena on speech.” — Justice Brett Kavanaugh (oral argument)

CNN

The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion. First Choice plans a federal suit alleging a First-Amendment violation; New Jersey intends to defend the subpoena’s legality in state court.

CNN