Justice Clarence Thomas sharply questioned the basis New Jersey had for issuing subpoenas seeking vast information from a pregnancy center, pressing the state’s lawyers during oral arguments on Tuesday in a case before the Supreme Court over whether the pregnancy center can fight the legality of the subpoena in federal court.
The case, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, stems from a dispute over whether First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a pregnancy center that offers resources for expectant and new mothers, can challenge the constitutionality of the subpoena from New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin in federal court. Platkin argued that the subpoena is part of an investigation into whether First Choice misled donors into thinking it is an abortion clinic, something pregnancy centers do not typically do.
Thomas hammered Sundeep Iyer, the lawyer arguing on behalf of New Jersey, over what led the state to issue the subpoenas and begin investigating the pregnancy center, specifically asking if it had received complaints about First Choice. Iyer responded that the state has had complaints about pregnancy centers but not First Choice specifically, to which Thomas replied, “So you had no basis to think that they were deceiving any of their contributors?”
“I think we had carefully canvassed all of the public information that is provided on the website of First Choice in making a determination that we wanted to initiate an investigation,” Iyer said in an attempt to push back on Thomas’s claim that there was no basis for the investigation.
Thomas again noted that the state had “no factual basis” to target First Choice, to which Iyer replied that investigations are common.
“State governments, federal government, initiate investigations all the time in the absence of complaints where they have a reason to suspect that there could be potential issues of legal compliance,” Iyer said. “And look, it could be the case based on our investigation, when we look at documents, when we look at information, that ultimately will determine that First Choice isn’t liable for any violation.”
Iyer also remarked that the discussion over the basis for the subpoena is more of an argument to be made if the high court finds that First Choice has standing to challenge the constitutionality of New Jersey’s actions in federal court.
The justices appeared largely skeptical of New Jersey’s claims that the subpoena is not an unlawful chilling of First Choice’s First Amendment rights, especially regarding the state’s claims that the subpoena cannot be viewed as enough of a threat to the pregnancy center’s free speech rights to have a case in federal court.
Several justices also expressed concern over the breadth of information, including the identities of donors to First Choice, that the state was demanding in its subpoena. Chief Justice John Roberts specifically asked what the state planned to do with the information and how it squares with the high court’s precedents guarding the privacy of donors.
“Our entire purpose in asking for the category of donor information that we asked about was to evaluate whether any donors themselves might have been deceived by the representations on the donation pages maintained by First Choice,” Iyer said.
“We have no interest in seeking enforcement against any of these donors,” Iyer added. “We have no interest in publicly disclosing any information about these donors. It is purely for the purpose … of evaluating whether donors might have been harmed.”
Erin Hawley, senior counsel for the conservative law firm Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents First Choice, argued to the justices that, despite the fact that the state attorney general cannot enforce the subpoena on his own without the help of a court, it still unlawfully chills the pregnancy center’s First Amendment rights. Hawley also argued that the state attorney general has better avenues to investigate his concerns than the sweeping subpoena at the center of the dispute.
“If the attorney general is really worried about donor deception, it doesn’t need to contact those donors,” Hawley said. “Instead, the objective standard applies under the Consumer Fraud Act; all the attorney general needs to do is prove a reasonable person would be deceived. He cannot possibly do that today.”
SUPREME COURT TO WEIGH WHETHER STATES CAN TARGET DONOR LISTS
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in the case within the coming months, with all opinions for this term scheduled to be released by the end of June 2026. The high court’s ruling in this case could have sweeping implications for the ability of investigative targets to fight subpoenas in federal court.
Oral arguments at the Supreme Court this month continue on Wednesday and next week, with hearings in cases involving the president’s ability to fire independent agency heads and limits on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates, among others.