The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in First Choice v. Platkin, a dispute over a New Jersey subpoena demanding donor and operational records from a pro-life pregnancy center that raises sharp First Amendment questions.

The case centers on a state subpoena that sought donor lists, personnel records, copies of solicitations and ads, statements about abortion pill reversal, and details about outside organizations the center worked with. First Choice Women’s Resource Centers says the subpoena is a targeted attempt to expose and chill pro-life support. The Alliance Defending Freedom sued on behalf of First Choice, arguing the demand is unlawful and aimed at silencing religious speech.

At oral argument, the justices pressed New Jersey’s lawyer on whether the state intended to probe donors’ beliefs or whether the investigation was simply fact-finding. “I wouldn’t frame it exactly in those terms,” Iyer replied. “But I think we’re looking at whether or not the donors have potentially been deceived.”

“But that would be the subject of the deception, right?” Justice Coney Barrett asked. “I gather that you think the website might have made them think that this was an entity that provided abortion care as opposed to a pro-life entity, so that was the concern?” “That’s right, Your Honor,” Iyer answered.

First Choice’s executive director warned the subpoena operates like a fishing expedition designed to punish disagreement and to intimidate donors. “Our state has done everything it could to make New Jersey a sanctuary state for abortion. Since pregnancy centers like ours do not perform or refer for abortions, we are targets for a government that disagrees with our views,” Aimee Huber said.

The ADF’s lawsuit describes the subpoena as “unlawful” and “unjust,” and argues that the attorney general “selectively targeted First Choice Women’s Resource Centers based on its religious speech and pro-life views with a wide-ranging, unfounded, and burdensome subpoena that requires the organization to expend its limited resources to produce extensive documentation or face judicial sanctions.” That framing makes the dispute as much about free speech as about administrative procedure.

A district court dismissed the complaint in 2024 for lack of jurisdiction, and the Third Circuit later sided with the state, prompting ADF to seek Supreme Court review. During the recent argument the justices sounded skeptical of the state’s approach and appeared receptive to protecting access to federal court for groups like First Choice. If the Court favors First Choice, it could bar state officials from using broad subpoenas to bypass federal protections.

Observers noted the parallel to earlier First Amendment battles where donor privacy mattered. In mid-century cases the Court sided with organizations that feared reprisals when member lists were exposed, and more recently the high court rebuked state overreach in disputes over charitable records. Those precedents were front and center in ADF’s strategy and in the justices’ questioning.

A majority of the Supreme Court appeared skeptical Tuesday of New Jersey’s effort to subpoena donor information from “crisis pregnancy centers” without federal court review, fearing that the probe may have chilled the First Amendment rights of anti-abortion supporters. The justices appeared likely to side with a religious nonprofit, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers – a decision that would allow the group to fight the state’s subpoena in federal court. Much of the roughly 90-minute oral argument focused on how far that decision might reach to similar subpoenas.

At a time when red and blue states are often pursuing radically different policies on abortion, immigration and LGBTQ rights, the religious nonprofit framed its inability to get into federal court as a threat to both liberal and conservative groups that could be targeted by state officials. Some justices also had that concern. The constitutional stakes go beyond any single nonprofit.

ADF attorney Caleb Dalton told a national outlet that the case tests whether state officials can weaponize investigations against political and ideological opponents. “We think New Jersey had a bad day in court today, and rightly so. This case is about whether or not state officials can be held accountable when they harass their political and ideological opponents and weaponize the justice system against them,” Dalton said.

“We’re hopeful that the court today, based on what we heard, we’re hopeful that they rule in favor of First Choice and allow them to have their day in court,” Dalton added. He stressed that there is no record of anyone complaining that donors were misled, noting the exchange in which “Justice Thomas asked the Attorney General, ‘Have you ever received a complaint about this?’ and the answer was no.” That gap undercuts the state’s justification for the broad fishing expedition.

Dalton was blunt about the website claim and the need for donor privacy. “And just to make a point about the websites, that is absolutely disingenuous for the Attorney General to claim that there could be some sort of misinformation here,” Dalton said. “Because what we know is, first of all, First Choice is clear that they’re pro-life, but not only that, the Attorney General doesn’t need that donor information. If he truly thought there was something untoward going on, he actually doesn’t need that information. It’s an objective test, and he failed that test today.”

The pro-life centers argue the subpoena is part of a pattern of post-Dobbs targeting meant to expose anonymous supporters and pressure them into silence. ADF emphasized how donor disclosure can cripple an organization by chilling contributions and inviting harassment. “Because if you had their members identified,” Lincoln Wilson said, “you could isolate the members and harm the organization’s mission. The U.S. Supreme Court said that’s protected information and states can’t get at that.”

The outcome will matter beyond New Jersey. A ruling allowing broad subpoenas without adequate federal review would give state officials a potent tool to pry into the finances and networks of nonprofits whose views they oppose. A decision protecting donor privacy and federal access would reinforce long-standing First Amendment limits on government power to demand membership and supporter lists.

A final opinion is not expected before the term ends in July 2026, but the line of questioning and the record cited by advocates suggest the Court is inclined to limit state overreach. For pro-life centers and religious nonprofits nationwide, winning the procedural doorway to federal court could preserve the confidentiality that allows donors and volunteers to support causes without legal intimidation.