The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday it will take up a case that pits a New Jersey pregnancy center against the state’s top law enforcement official, marking a new chapter in the post-Roe legal landscape.
According to the Associated Press, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a self-described “faith-based, pro-life pregnancy center,” is seeking to block a 2023 subpoena from New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin.
The subpoena — which has yet to be served — requests detailed records, including donor lists, advertising practices, and information about medical staff. The organization claims the inquiry violates its rights and amounts to government overreach.
The justices’ decision to review the case follows the high court’s landmark 2022 ruling that ended federal protections for abortion. Since that reversal, Republican-led states have largely moved toward implementing bans and tighter restrictions, while Democrat-controlled states like New Jersey have leaned into safeguarding access to abortion services.
At the core of the dispute is whether the clinic misrepresented its services — specifically whether people were misled into believing it offered abortion referrals. Pregnancy centers like First Choice are known for counseling clients to carry pregnancies to term.
The organization initially filed suit in federal court to halt the investigation. However, a judge ruled the matter was premature, and a federal appeals court agreed, declining to intervene.
Now, with the nation’s highest court stepping in, the case could set far-reaching precedents on how states can regulate—or investigate—organizations involved in the charged intersection of healthcare, religion, and reproductive rights.
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers brought their case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the demand for donor disclosures has suppressed their freedom of speech protected under the First Amendment.
“State attorneys general on both sides of the political aisle have been accused of misusing this authority to issue demands against their ideological and political opponents,” its lawyers wrote. “Even if these accusations turn out to be false, it is important that a federal forum exists for suits challenging those investigative demands.”
At the same time, Platkin has moved to uphold the subpoena through state court proceedings. However, the presiding judge has thus far declined to compel the organization to hand over the requested documents, urging both parties to reach a resolution through negotiation instead.
The state urged the Supreme Court to decline review, arguing that the case lacks the kind of substantial lower-court disagreement that typically warrants the justices’ intervention.
State attorneys maintained that “the decision below is correct and does not have the impacts petitioner alleges.” As of now, the attorney general’s office has not responded to a request for comment. The case is due to heard this fall.
