The Supreme Court signaled a favorable stance towards First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a faith-based pregnancy center, during oral arguments challenging New Jersey’s request for information related to their fundraising practices. This legal confrontation arose when New Jersey’s Attorney General, Matthew Platkin, issued subpoenas looking into potential misleading practices concerning reproductive-health services. First Choice contends that these subpoenas, which include requests for donor information, may have a “chilling” effect on its First Amendment rights and those of its donors.
Although a New Jersey federal court initially refused to block the subpoena, citing the case as not “ripe” for federal intervention, the state court has allowed the Attorney General to enforce the subpoena, while also permitting First Choice to object. When the matter reached the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, the ruling upheld the federal court’s decision, suggesting First Choice pursue constitutional claims within the state judicial framework.
In the Supreme Court, Erin Hawley represented First Choice, asserting the subpoenas breached their associative rights, citing a case of donor chilling akin to past precedent in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, which concerned California’s demand for donor information from charities. Meanwhile, Vivek Suri, on behalf of the federal government, argued that a credible threat to enforce the subpoena legitimizes First Choice’s standing to sue.
New Jersey’s representative, Sundeep Iyer, claimed that the subpoenas were non-self-executing, requiring a court order to compel compliance, a characterization scrutinized by several justices, including Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito. Alito questioned the timing of the non-self-executing argument, while Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed skepticism that potential donors would be unaffected by disclosure risks.
The deliberations also encompassed the broader implications of opening federal courts to challenges against state actions, which Iyer warned could inundate the judiciary. Nonetheless, the bench appeared to evaluate the real-world implications of restraining First Amendment claims to state courts, prompting a candid concession from Iyer acknowledging that First Choice might be eventually precluded from federal claims due to state court rulings.
A ruling on the matter is expected by the summer. For further details on the case and potential outcomes, SCOTUSblog provides comprehensive coverage.