Supreme Court Hearing on New Jersey’s Subpoena of Pro-Life Group
In a recent case, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas challenged attorneys from New Jersey’s attorney general’s office, asking them to acknowledge their investigations into pro-life groups, particularly First Choice, were based on general suspicions rather than specific complaints. During oral arguments concerning a subpoena issued by AG Matthew Platkin, Thomas pressed for clarity.
“Was there any reason to think they were cheating contributors?” he questioned Chief Counsel Sandeep Iyer. Iyer, while mentioning that complaints exist about crisis pregnancy centers, admitted that none were directed specifically at First Choice, which operates faith-based facilities aimed at preventing abortions across New Jersey.
“There were no complaints,” Iyer confirmed, but he argued that an investigation might be warranted if there’s a belief of compliance issues, even without concrete allegations. He cited concerns about misleading donors and patient privacy violations.
“It seems like a cumbersome way to find out if someone has a misleading website,” Thomas responded, hinting at the oddity of the situation.
The subpoena demanded that First Choice disclose its donor names, suggesting potential fraudulent activity. In turn, First Choice filed a lawsuit claiming that this request infringed on its First Amendment rights.
While Iyer maintained that First Choice wasn’t yet obliged to provide donor information, many justices expressed skepticism about the center’s arguments against the subpoena. Chief Justice John Roberts pointedly asked, “Do you not consider that knowing that your name might be made public could influence future potential donors?”
Iyer disagreed, insisting the evidence presented by First Choice, which included a declaration from a donor concerned about privacy, didn’t strongly support their claim.
In response, First Choice attorney Erin Hawley argued that even small-dollar donors, some giving as little as $10, might be deterred by the possibility of public exposure. She underscored that the group’s website didn’t contain misleading information.
Iyer attempted to differentiate between types of subpoenas, stating that administrative subpoenas don’t impose a requirement to produce documents. However, Hawley countered that any subpoena could have a chilling effect on donations, emphasizing the urgency and gravity of the situation for organizations like First Choice.
Even Justice Elena Kagan seemed to resonate with these concerns, noting how unsettling a subpoena could be for potential donors.
A decision regarding First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin is anticipated by the end of June.
