The conservative-leaning Supreme Court appeared skeptical during arguments Tuesday in a case involving anti-abortion pregnancy clinics and New Jersey's Democratic attorney general, which focuses on when nonprofits can challenge state investigations in federal court.
Most justices appeared sympathetic to First Choice Women's Resource Centers, which challenged a subpoena demanding detailed donor information and internal records. The case could have significant implications for thousands of crisis pregnancy centers nationwide.
Justices expressed reservations about the attorney general's characterization of the subpoena as a mere "request," Politico reported. Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas noted he had never even heard the term "subpoena request," while liberal Justice Elena Kagan suggested an ordinary person would find such a distinction unconvincing.
“An ordinary person, one of the funders for this organization, or for any similar organization, presented with this subpoena and then told, but ‘Don’t worry, it has to be stamped by a court,’ is not going to take that as very reassuring,” Kagan said, according to the report.
The clinics' attorney, Erin Hawley, argued the subpoena represented an "enormous burden" with a "credible threat of enforcement" that could chill the organization's work and donor relationships.
The attorney general's legal team pointed to discrepancies between the clinic's patient-facing and donor-facing websites. The patient site discusses abortion options, despite the clinic not offering abortion services, while the donor site emphasizes pro-life messaging and abstinence.
The case highlights broader tensions surrounding crisis pregnancy centers, which conservatives have positioned as alternatives to comprehensive reproductive health providers. These centers vary widely in services and medical staffing, and some have faced lawsuits for potentially misleading patients.
Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared most skeptical of the clinics' arguments, saying, "We don’t employ some sort of a credible threat analysis in that context."
The court is expected to issue its ruling by the end of June.
