Supreme Courtroom Seems Possible to Assist Professional-Life Being pregnant Heart Towards Democrat Harassment

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, a case challenging a broad investigative subpoena infringing on the First Amendment rights of a pro-life pregnancy center. The High Court is expected to decide the case by June 2026.

New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin claims—without any evidence—that First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a religious nonprofit, provides “false and misleading information” to women and has demanded it hand over advertising materials on the Abortion Pill Reversal (APR) protocol, donor lists, personnel files, and other operational records spanning the last 10 years. First Choice, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, asks SCOTUS to resolve a technical but urgent constitutional question of whether a state subpoena that chills First Amendment rights must first be litigated in state court before seeking federal court relief.

In its High Court petition, First Choice argues that AG Platkin’s subpoena improperly targets its pro-life viewpoint, chills donor participation, and that this infringement on its First Amendment rights should be heard in a federal forum.

HELP LIFENEWS SAVE BABIES FROM ABORTION! Please help LifeNews.com with a donation!

Many of the Justices focused their questions on whether New Jersey’s subpoena actually carried an enforcement mechanism to punish First Choice if it didn’t reveal its donor information. While the state of New Jersey argued the subpoena was “non-self-executing,” meaning it is reliant on a separate and future court order to enforce the liability penalties it threatened, the Justices reasoned that this subpoena could give “ordinary” donors pause before contributing or associating with First Choice.

Justice Elena Kagan noted that an “ordinary person” would not find it “reassuring” that the subpoena would need to be “stamped by a court” before being enforced.

“I’m an ordinary person…and maybe this [subpoena] will be denied, maybe it won’t,” said Justice Kagan. “I’m fearful of that. I don’t want my name being given.”

Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Amy Coney Barrett inquired about why the New Jersey Attorney General needed First Choice’s donor information in the first place. New Jersey Chief Counsel Sundeer Iyer responded by saying the state had reason to believe First Choice was “misleading donors” about “abortion care” and needed donor information to determine whether they had been “deceived.”

“This seems to be a burdensome way to find out if someone has a confusing website,” stated Justice Thomas.

Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, and Justice Neil Gorsuch all explored whether the mere subpoena itself with its demand for donor information incited a First Amendment “chill” on First Choice.

While Iyer clung to the rationale the subpoena’s enforcement was dependent on a “downstream” court decision, Counsel Erin Hawley, arguing on behalf of First Choice, stated the courts have “long safeguarded” donor lists. “A credible enforcement threat,” she noted, “and even an unenforceable threat may chill First Amendment freedoms.”

Regarding whether the case should remain in state court until that court rejects the First Amendment claims, Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted that an entity does not have to wait on state action to justify federal court review if a chilling effect is involved.

In quoting an amicus brief from the ACLU, Justice Kavanaugh stated, “‘…a speaker is not obligated to wait for formal enforcement before challenging the constitutionality of state action’ and ‘a subpoena seeking sensitive donor information…can chill a disfavored speaker’s protective associations long before it’s ever enforced.”

Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said, “The New Jersey Attorney General’s subpoena violates the First Amendment by demanding First Choice Pregnancy Resource Centers break the confidentiality of its donors and associates without any evidence of wrongdoing or any compelling need. Challenges to state investigations where constitutional protections are at issue should not have to wait for state court rulings that may or may not resolve those issues. The government has no business harassing pro-life ministries and its supporters because it disagrees with their pro-life cause.”