Supreme Court Hears Arguments About Pregnancy Center Donor Information
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case involving pregnancy resource centers in New Jersey that have been fighting a legal battle to prevent the subpoena of its donor records.
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin issued a subpoena in November 2023 demanding the names and contact information of donors to First Choice Women’s Pregnancy Centers. He claimed he wanted to make sure no donors had been misled into donating to First Choice.
First Choice Executive Director Aimee Huber saw it as an attack on First Choice that could lead to further harassment of other pregnancy centers—so she pushed back.
“I knew that if we didn’t stand up, that other pregnancy centers would be harassed and targeted, and I couldn’t let that happen,” Huber said in an article produced by the Alliance Defending Freedom, the public interest law firm representing First Choice.
First Choice challenged the attorney general’s subpoena in federal court based on the First and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, claiming the subpoena chilled the right to freedom of association and freedom of speech.
Originally, the federal district court dismissed the case, saying it was not ripe for a decision until the state court enforced the subpoena. The attorney general then filed an enforcement action in state court.
The state court granted the enforcement action of the subpoena, but it declined to decide the federal constitutional claims raised by First Choice, finding them “premature.”
First Choice filed an appeal, meanwhile producing some documents requested by the subpoena.
After the state court enforcement action, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit sent the case back to the federal district court, stating that First Choice’s claims were now ripe.
However, the federal court again declared First Choice’s claims not ripe until the state court “require[s] the subpoena recipient to respond to the subpoena under threat of contempt.”
First Choice filed yet another appeal to the Third Circuit where the majority said the case was not ripe because the pregnancy center could still assert its constitutional claims in the state court.
Finally, the case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices asked questions about the nature of the subpoena and what injury the pregnancy center had suffered.
ADF Senior Counsel Erin Hawley, who argued on behalf of First Choice at the Supreme Court, said the subpoena was compulsory and that the pregnancy center had standing to bring the claim because it has both present and future injuries for the court to consider, including an infringement on its freedom of association rights under the First Amendment.
The United States federal government, who presented its arguments as well as an amicus curiae with an interest in the case, argued that First Choice has standing to bring the claim because of the “credible threat of enforcement” and that it need not show that the subpoena would have a chilling effect on donors’ freedom of expression or association.
On behalf of New Jersey, Sundeep Iyer argued first that the subpoena was of a different nature and not self-executing. However, several of the justices seemed to question this characterization. Justice Neil Gorsuch said it “seems pretty self-executing to me.”
Several justices of both conservative and liberal persuasion asked questions about the state subpoena’s chilling effect on donors’ willingness to give to First Choice knowing there would be a risk their private information would be released.
The justices also asked about whether the plaintiffs could bring a federal lawsuit until after a state court resolves the issues related to the subpoena, and whether the federal lawsuit would then be precluded. In addressing the preclusion argument, Iyer granted that First Choice would have been prevented from bringing its federal lawsuit.
Justice Clarence Thomas questioned the State of New Jersey about whether there had been any specific complaints about First Choice’s fundraising that warranted its subpoena. Iyer acknowledged there had been none.
“So you had no basis to believe that they were deceiving any of their contributors,” Thomas noted.
This article was originally published by MinistryWatch.
Kim Roberts is a freelance writer who holds a Juris Doctorate with honors from Baylor University and an undergraduate degree in government from Angelo State University. She has three young adult children who were home schooled and is happily married to her husband of 28 years.