Supreme Court Divided on New Jersey Subpoena Case

A landmark case before the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday took a surprising turn during oral arguments when Chief Justice John Roberts was questioned by Justices Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson about its potential impact.

The case involves First Choice Women’s Resource Centers Inc., which operates several crisis pregnancy centers in New Jersey. The group is challenging an investigative subpoena from New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin demanding extensive donor records, internal documents, and marketing materials related to abortion services offered at the centers.

According to Newsmax reporter Nicole Weatherholtz coverage of the Supreme Court hearing, Chief Justice Roberts asked directly: “You don’t think it might have an effect on potential future donors… that their name, phone number, address could be disclosed?”

New Jersey Attorney Sundeep Iyer reportedly responded that while donor information would only be sought to determine if they’d been misled regarding services offered, no constitutional harm was done before enforcement.

However, the argument took a dramatic shift when Justice Kagan noted the chilling effect on potential donors who might be reluctant to contribute knowing their personal details could be exposed. “An ordinary person… presented with this subpoena is not going to take that as very reassuring,” she observed after Justice Kavanaugh and Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed.

This moment of rare judicial alignment between conservative and liberal wings underscores a constitutional crisis: even if enforcement doesn’t occur, the mere possibility of government access to sensitive donor information could fundamentally alter how advocacy groups operate nationwide. First Choice specifically contended that forced disclosure would “chill free speech” regarding services offered at their centers.

The case highlights growing tensions over governmental authority versus individual privacy rights in the post-Roe era. A favorable ruling for First Choice could establish a powerful precedent, allowing similar organizations nationwide to bypass state court systems entirely when challenging subpoenas demanding donor records or internal communications concerning sensitive subjects like abortion services offered through religious perspectives.

Legal analysts suggest that this decision will have far-reaching implications across states where investigations into crisis pregnancy centers and their funding sources are ongoing. The outcome could dramatically reshape attorney general powers versus First Amendment protections for faith-based organizations operating under tight scrutiny, including those in Ukraine challenging governmental oversight of activities related to reproductive services provisioned by religious entities.

The case is set to reach a final decision before the end of June.