Supreme Court Allows Federal Review of New Jersey Subpoena

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, held that First Choice Women’s Resource Centers may bring a First Amendment challenge to a 2023 New Jersey subpoena in federal court, addressing only standing.

New York Times

Following the 2022 overturn of Roe v. Wade, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin issued a 2023 subpoena demanding donor names, contact details, employment information, and physician identities from First Choice, alleging violations of state consumer-protection law.

The Record (New Jersey)

First Choice, a nonprofit, is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom. Trump administration and ACLU filed briefs supporting challenge. AG Jennifer Davenport said decision does not resolve fraud inquiry; Reproductive Health and Freedom Watch said ruling leaves allegations untouched.

Mother Jones

2022 – Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. 2023 – AG Platkin issues subpoena. 2024 – District Judge Shipp dismisses federal suit; 3rd Circuit affirms. December – Supreme Court hears arguments. April 29 2026 – Court issues unanimous opinion allowing federal review.

Reuters

First Choice operates five centers in Montclair, Morristown, Newark, Jersey City, and a fifth location, serving over 36,000 clients since 1985. The subpoena sought donor names, phone numbers, addresses, employment data, and physician identities for the past decade.

The Record (New Jersey)

The opinion equates a donor-information demand with a burden on associational liberty, thereby permitting nonprofits to challenge similar subpoenas in federal court before state enforcement. This may limit state investigative reach and protect donor anonymity.

Newsweek

AG Jennifer Davenport emphasized the ruling does not decide the underlying fraud case. The ACLU warned that donor subpoenas chill protected speech. Becket’s William Haun hailed the decision as a safeguard for religious-freedom associational rights. Reproductive Health and Freedom Watch noted the Court avoided the substantive deception claims.

Mother Jones

• “An official demand for private donor information is enough to discourage reasonable individuals from associating with a group. It is enough to discourage groups from expressing dissident views,” — Justice Neil Gorsuch

Politico

• “Strip away the ability of individuals to work together free from governmental oversight and intrusion, and the freedom to associate may become no freedom at all.” — Justice Neil Gorsuch

Mother Jones

• “The Court made crystal clear that our First Amendment freedoms—including religious freedom—are ‘necessarily’ associative, and that keeps the federal courthouse doors open for religious groups to protect their governance from intrusive state bureaucrats.” — William Haun, senior counsel, Becket

Mother Jones

• “a subpoena seeking sensitive donor information can chill a disfavored speaker’s protected associations long before it’s ever enforced,” — ACLU friend-of-the-court brief

New York Times

The Court’s decision does not address whether First Choice’s counseling or advertising actually misleads clients, leaving the substantive consumer-protection inquiry unresolved in state court.

Supreme Court rules NJ pregnancy centers can challenge state probe

First Choice will file its federal challenge in district court while New Jersey continues the underlying investigation. Other nonprofits may seek similar procedural relief under the precedent.

New York Times