On December 2, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court found itself once again at the center of America’s ongoing debate over abortion, but this time the legal question had little to do with the procedure itself. Instead, the justices weighed whether a faith-based crisis pregnancy center in New Jersey, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, could challenge a state investigation in federal court on First Amendment grounds. The case, which has drawn national attention, could have sweeping implications for thousands of similar centers across the country, as well as for advocacy groups of all stripes.
The dispute began when New Jersey’s Democratic Attorney General, Matthew Platkin, launched an investigation into whether First Choice misled women seeking abortions by suggesting the center offered abortion services, when in fact it seeks to steer women away from terminating pregnancies. In 2023, Platkin’s office issued a subpoena demanding detailed donor information, the names of doctors, and other internal records from First Choice. According to Reuters, the state’s consumer-protection division sought to determine if the center had violated state law by deceiving donors and clients about its services.
First Choice, which operates five locations in New Jersey, pushed back hard. The center argued the subpoena was not only baseless but also threatened its rights to free speech and free association under the First Amendment. “You don’t think it might have an effect on potential future donors to the organization, to know that their name, phone number, address, et cetera, could be disclosed?” Chief Justice John Roberts asked New Jersey’s attorney during oral arguments, as reported by the Associated Press. The concern, echoed by multiple justices, was that even the threat of disclosure could chill support for groups with unpopular or controversial views.
First Choice’s legal team, led by Erin Hawley of the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom, described the subpoena as an “enormous burden” that carried a “credible threat of enforcement.” According to POLITICO, Hawley told the justices that the investigation and the accompanying consumer alert issued by the attorney general’s office had already caused some donors to reconsider their support. “It is a broad non-ideological issue that really does transcend ideological boundaries,” Hawley argued, pointing out that advocacy groups across the spectrum could be at risk if governments could demand donor lists without judicial oversight.
That argument found some unlikely allies. The American Civil Liberties Union, which typically supports abortion rights and different policy outcomes than First Choice, joined a friend-of-the-court brief backing the center’s right to seek relief in federal court. Jeanne LoCicero, an attorney with the ACLU of New Jersey, stated, “We are on the same page that investigatory subpoenas seeking sensitive information put all advocacy at risk. Federal court should remain open to anyone who believes their First Amendment rights are being violated, regardless of viewpoint.” POLITICO noted that groups representing immigrants and the LGBTQ community also warned that a victory for New Jersey could set a precedent for conservative states to target their own donor lists and internal records.
During the lively Supreme Court session, the justices spent over an hour discussing the case before the word “abortion” was even mentioned. The focus remained squarely on the right of nonprofits to challenge state investigations in federal court. Justice Elena Kagan pressed New Jersey’s attorney, Sundeep Iyer, to consider the perspective of an ordinary donor: “I’m an ordinary person, and I think, ‘Okay, these subpoenas, they’re pretty regularly issued, and maybe this one will be denied, but, you know, maybe it won’t.’ And I’m fearful of that. I don’t want my name being given. So why isn’t that enough?” Kagan asked, as reported by Reuters.
New Jersey’s position was that the subpoena was merely a request that would require a state court’s intervention to be enforced. “I think the risk would be that federal courts would potentially be inundated by these subpoena cases,” Iyer warned, suggesting a flood of litigation could follow if the Supreme Court sided with First Choice. Justice Clarence Thomas was unimpressed by this distinction, remarking, “I’ve never heard the term ‘subpoena request.’” The skepticism was palpable among both the Court’s conservative and some liberal members, who seemed to agree that the threat of disclosure was enough to warrant a federal challenge.
Underlying the legal wrangling is a broader political and cultural battle. Since the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Republican-controlled states have ramped up restrictions on abortion, while Democratic-led states have sought to protect access. Crisis pregnancy centers, often supported by public funds in conservative states, have proliferated in recent years. These centers, which vary widely in the services they offer, are held up by some as compassionate alternatives to abortion providers, while critics accuse them of misleading women about their options and of lacking proper medical oversight. According to POLITICO, some centers have faced lawsuits for providing inaccurate information or withholding details from patients.
New Jersey is one of several states to investigate crisis pregnancy centers for allegedly deceptive practices. The state’s subpoena in this case targeted discrepancies between First Choice’s patient-facing website, which encourages women to learn about abortion procedures (though the center does not provide them), and its donor-facing materials, which emphasize abstinence and pro-life advocacy. California, for example, has also targeted such centers for claims about so-called abortion pill “reversal,” a practice widely considered unsafe by medical experts. In 2018, the Supreme Court struck down a California law requiring these centers to inform patients of their right to access abortion elsewhere, finding it violated the First Amendment.
The implications of the Court’s eventual ruling could reach far beyond the abortion debate. As POLITICO reported, recent years have seen advocacy groups from across the political spectrum—from the National Rifle Association to Media Matters—seek protection from state investigations by turning to federal courts. In one notable case, the NRA successfully challenged a threatened crackdown by New York insurance regulators, while a federal judge in Washington blocked Texas and Missouri from demanding information from Media Matters over its campaign against racist content on X (formerly Twitter).
Yet not all justices were convinced by First Choice’s arguments. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned whether the Court should give more weight to the fears of anti-abortion clinics and their donors than it has to those of immigrants worried about targeting by federal officials. “We don’t employ some sort of a credible threat analysis in that context,” Jackson observed, hinting at the complexities of balancing free speech rights with state regulatory power.
The Supreme Court, which holds a 6-3 conservative majority, is expected to issue its decision by the end of June 2026. Aimee Huber, First Choice’s executive director, expressed hope that a favorable ruling would prompt other states to “back off” similar investigations. For now, the legal and political worlds are watching closely, knowing that the outcome could reshape not just the future of crisis pregnancy centers but the ability of advocacy groups everywhere to resist state scrutiny of their most sensitive information.