The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, a case that spotlights a raw clash between free speech and aggressive state investigations. At issue is whether a New Jersey attorney general can use a sweeping subpoena to demand donors’ identities and internal records from faith-based pregnancy centers before any state court has ordered compliance.
New Jersey’s subpoena reportedly sought thousands of donations and up to a decade of internal documents, including names, addresses, and phone numbers of small donors who gave as little as ten dollars. First Choice contends that this intrusive demand chills association and speech, and that forcing these disputes into state court would deny federal protection for constitutional rights.
The attorney general’s office defends the probe as a consumer-protection inquiry into whether donors were misled about the services provided, arguing the subpoena is part of an investigation rather than an attempt to shame supporters. State lawyers told the justices the subpoena is non-self-executing and would require further court action before being enforced, a technicality that many justices seemed unwilling to accept when weighed against real-world intimidation.
Even groups that disagree with the clinics’ mission warned against the precedent the state seeks to set; the ACLU joined other civil-liberties organizations in flagging the risk of “suppression by subpoena” and “censorship by intimidation.” Several justices pressed New Jersey’s counsel on whether the office had any actual complaints or reports of deception, and the questioning suggested deep skepticism about using law-enforcement powers to target ideological opponents.
Make no mistake: this is about more than one nonprofit in one state — it’s about whether partisan officials can weaponize subpoenas to chill religious ministries and civic associations across the country. Conservatives who believe in limited government and robust First Amendment protections have every reason to worry when prosecutors demand donor rolls as if public shaming were a legitimate regulatory tool.
The Court’s questions indicated a willingness to rein in government overreach, and a decision is expected by the end of June next year that could restore basic privacy for donors and reinstate a commonsense check on inquisitorial state power. Whatever the outcome, the fight over donor privacy and free speech will be a defining test of whether the government respects the constitutional freedoms that allow civil society — including faith-based ministries — to serve their communities without fear.
