The three-year effort by New Jersey officials to investigate a network of Christian anti-abortion pregnancy centers accused of using deceptive practices landed before the US Supreme Court on December 2, 2025, when the justices heard arguments about issue of narrow jurisdiction whether the case is in state or federal court.
As of 2023, attorneys for First Choice Women’s Resource Centers are fighting New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin’s subpoena for a wide range of the nonprofit’s records and communications, including donor names.
In New Jersey, state courts have the authority to handle subpoena disputes. But First Choice sued in federal court to block enforcement, saying the subpoena unconstitutionally freezes its rights to free speech and free association and that federal courts should decide constitutional challenges.
On Dec. 2, First Choice attorney Erin Morrow Hawley urged the justices to protect donor privacy, consider Platkin’s motives and consider his “coercive” subpoena a violation of the First Amendment. Such a ruling would reverse earlier rulings by a U.S. federal judge and a federal appeals panel that the case should remain in state court, at least until a state judge decides whether First Choice’s noncompliance warrants penalties.
“The New Jersey attorney general issued a sweeping subpoena ordering — on pain of contempt — that First Choice produce donor names, addresses and phone numbers so his office can contact and question them,” Hawley said, adding, “This is the context of a hostile attorney general who has issued a consumer warning, urged New Jerseyans to forces to strike for pregnancies”.
Hawley is a former law clerk to Chief Justice John Roberts. Vivek Suri, an assistant attorney general at the U.S. Department of Justice, joined Hawley in arguing on behalf of First Choice, saying people with constitutional challenges always have a place in federal court.
Sundeep Iyer, the chief counsel for New Jersey Attorney General Platkin, warned that limiting constitutional challenges solely to federal judges would clog the courts and represent “a pretty dramatic change in historical practice.” Platkin’s office alone has issued more than 500 subpoenas this year to individuals and companies it is investigating, while Google received about 50,000 subpoenas last year, Iyer added.
“State and local governments issue tens of thousands of subpoenas each year, but the federal government’s theory would risk turning many of these routine subpoena disputes into federal cases,” Iyer said. “Even without a First Amendment claim, this would be a remarkable break with history and tradition. No court has accepted this theory, and this court should not be the first.”
The case has drawn unusual allies, with groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Foundation for Civil Rights and Expression siding with the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Christian legal defense group where Hawley works. In a friendly in August 2025 brief, the ACLU and the foundation worried about “censorship through intimidation” and warned that authorities of all political persuasions are increasingly using their powers, including subpoenas, to stifle dissent as society becomes more polarized.
Over 90 minutes of arguments on Dec. 2, both sides sidestepped the issue of jurisdiction, and the justices peppered the lawyers with a steady stream of questions.
The justices looked at the purpose of New Jersey Attorney General Platkin’s request for donor details (to see if donors believed their contributions were going to an abortion rights group) and whether compliance with subpoenas is mandatory (not unless a judge orders compliance). The lawyers also debated the “degree of coldness” that could deter donors and whether a demand letter instead of a subpoena would trigger the same legal battle.
They disagreed over whether simply receiving a subpoena can cause “imminent injury” or pose a “credible threat” if courts have not yet—and perhaps never—imposed sanctions on a noncompliant recipient. First Choice’s lawyers argued that they suffered damages for the costs of the legal battle, expected loss of charitable contributions from donors who fear public disclosure and possible regulatory retaliation if they do not comply with the subpoena. New Jersey Attorney General Platkin’s team had characterized claims of such damages as speculative.
The views of some judges seemed clear in their question.
Judge Clarence Thomas asked Iyer if investigators had received reports of deceptive practices from First Choice, and Iyer admitted they had not.
“You say you have no complaints. But you probably looked at their website and their material and you think it could have been misleading,” Thomas said.
Subpoenaing donor information “just seems to be a burdensome way to find out if someone has a confusing website,” he added.
Tax laws require charities to identify major donors on tax returns in order to maintain tax-exempt status. This law also applies challenged in Ohio federal court.
Hawley urged the justices to reject Iyer’s contention that the subpoenas are voluntary, negotiable and not intimidating.
The subpoenas “would terrify regular donors, mom-and-pop donors,” Hawley said. “If you look at the allegations in this case, some donors gave as little as $10. Those people are going to be worried about an attorney general, the top law enforcement officer in the country, asking for their names, phone numbers, addresses, places of work, so he can contact them for a donor website.”
First Choice has five centers in Jersey City, Montclair, Morristown, Newark and New Brunswick, New Jersey.
The decision is expected by the summer.
This story originally reported by Dana DiFilippo for the New Jersey screen on December 2, 2025. New Jersey Monitor is part of State Newsroom, a nonprofit grant-supported news network and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey screen maintains editorial independence. Contact Publisher Terrence T. McDonald with questions: [email protected].
