On December 2, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court convened to hear a case that could have broad implications for free speech, donor privacy, and the ongoing battle over abortion access in America. At the heart of the dispute is First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a network of five Christian faith-based anti-abortion centers in New Jersey, and a subpoena issued by the state’s Attorney General, Matthew Platkin, in late 2023. The case, which has captured national attention, comes in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned the longstanding constitutional right to abortion and set off a wave of state-level legal and political maneuvering.
The controversy began in November 2023, when Platkin’s office demanded that First Choice hand over the names of its donors and doctors. State investigators argued that they needed this information as part of an inquiry into whether the centers had misrepresented themselves to donors and the public, potentially violating New Jersey’s consumer-protection laws. According to Reuters, the investigation centered on allegations that First Choice had led donors and potential clients to believe the facilities offered abortions and other reproductive health services, when in fact their primary aim was to steer women away from ending their pregnancies.
First Choice, represented by the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, pushed back hard. The organization sued Platkin in federal court, contending that the subpoena amounted to a violation of its First Amendment rights—specifically, freedom of speech and association. The clinics argued that forcing them to reveal their donor lists would chill free expression and deter supporters from contributing to their cause. "The broader common sense of the situation ... would seem to say, 'This is just kind of obvious that there's some kind of objective chill from a subpoena on speech,'" Justice Brett Kavanaugh remarked during oral arguments, as reported by Reuters.
But the legal question before the Supreme Court was not whether the centers had been deceptive, nor whether the state’s investigation was justified. Instead, the justices were asked to decide a narrower procedural issue: Was First Choice’s federal lawsuit filed at the right time, or was it too early given ongoing state court proceedings? In legal terms, the case hinged on whether the dispute was "ripe" for federal adjudication, or whether First Choice would have to exhaust its remedies in state court before seeking relief in the federal system.
Lower courts had sided with the state, dismissing First Choice’s federal case as premature. After First Choice’s suit was thrown out, Platkin moved to enforce the subpoena in state court. In 2024, a state judge declined to quash the subpoena outright, instead ordering both sides to negotiate a narrower request for information. The judge also noted that constitutional issues could still be litigated as the case progressed, leaving the door open for further legal wrangling.
During Supreme Court arguments, several justices appeared sympathetic to First Choice’s position. Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal on the bench, pressed the state’s lawyer, 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," Kagan said. "So why isn't that enough?" Her remarks underscored the tension between the state’s interest in investigating potential consumer fraud and the constitutional protections afforded to private associations and their supporters.
First Choice’s lawyer, Erin Hawley, argued that the subpoena was not just a routine request for information but a coercive act, especially given the political climate following the Dobbs decision. She pointed to a consumer alert issued by Platkin’s office after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which warned the public that crisis pregnancy centers do not provide abortions and may offer "false or misleading information about abortion." According to Reuters, Hawley contended that this demonstrated state hostility toward her client’s mission and heightened the chilling effect of the subpoena.
The broader context cannot be ignored. Crisis pregnancy centers like First Choice have come under increased scrutiny since the Dobbs ruling. Abortion rights advocates have long argued that such centers are deceptive, often presenting themselves as full-service women’s health clinics while in reality seeking to persuade women to carry pregnancies to term. The facilities frequently advertise free ultrasounds and pregnancy tests, but critics say they rarely offer comprehensive medical care or unbiased counseling. Instead, their literature and staff are geared toward dissuading women from seeking abortions, a point that has fueled heated debates in legislatures and courts alike.
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority, installed over the past decade, has shown a willingness to revisit and sometimes overturn established precedents on contentious social issues. The justices’ questioning during oral arguments suggested a majority may be inclined to revive First Choice’s federal lawsuit, allowing the organization to continue its constitutional challenge without waiting for the state court process to play out. If the clinics prevail, it could set a precedent for other groups facing similar subpoenas, making it easier to bring First Amendment claims in federal court at an earlier stage. If they lose, First Choice would likely have to continue fighting in state court before seeking federal intervention, potentially delaying any resolution for months or even years.
Platkin’s office, for its part, maintains that the subpoena is a legitimate tool in its investigation and that the courts should not intervene until the state process has run its course. The attorney general’s team has emphasized that the request for donor and doctor names is not, in itself, an infringement of constitutional rights, especially since a state court order would be required to enforce it. But as the justices noted, the mere prospect of disclosure can have a chilling effect—something that resonates deeply in the context of politically charged issues like abortion.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling by the end of June 2026. Whatever the outcome, the decision will almost certainly reverberate far beyond New Jersey, shaping the landscape for donor privacy, state investigations, and the ongoing clash over reproductive rights in America. For now, both sides are watching closely, knowing that the stakes—for free speech, for privacy, and for the future of abortion access—could hardly be higher.
As the legal drama unfolds, it’s clear that the battle over abortion in the United States is far from settled. Every new case, every subpoena, and every court ruling adds another layer to a debate that touches on some of the most deeply held beliefs in American society. And as the Supreme Court weighs its next move, the nation waits—wondering what rights, and what limits, will emerge from the marble halls in Washington.
