Justices Lean Toward Pregnancy Center Claim in Subpoena Row

US Supreme Court justices appeared largely open to allowing targets of state subpoenas to bring pre-enforcement challenges in federal court, although it was less clear what path they would take to get there.

The New Jersey Attorney General’s Office at argument on Tuesday defended its subpoena seeking donor lists and other information from First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a network of anti-abortion pregnancy centers in the state. Chief Counsel Sundeep Iyer said federal courts shouldn’t be able to intervene until litigation at the state level is resolved.

Justices expressed concern that New Jersey’s position would effectively close the doors of the federal courthouse to litigants like First Choice who think their First Amendment rights are being chilled. The court also chided Iyer for the state reversing its position on whether or not any consequences attach to the subpoena, which New Jersey now argues is not self-enforcing.

Erin Hawley, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, told the justices the subpoena’s inherent First Amendment chill should be enough to warrant federal review.

The US Solicitor General’s Office sided with First Choice but said the court should instead adopt a credible threat test. If that wasn’t appealing, Assistant to the Solicitor General Vivek Suri said, the justices could craft a compromise test with elements of both.

Iyer said subpoenas like the one issued to First Choice are used by state and local agencies thousands of times a year as part of routine investigations. He warned a ruling in the pregnancy centers’ favor could open the floodgates to thousands of new lawsuits challenging state subpoenas in federal court.

The ACLU and other civil liberties groups have urged the court to side with First Choice, warning of the threat of hostile state investigators using similar subpoenas to target organizations over ideologies they dislike.

The case is First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, U.S., No. 24-781, argued on 12/2/25.