The marble steps of the nation’s highest court saw a familiar shuffle of anticipation as the justices dug into a dispute that has stirred up constitutional questions, political tension, and the long-running battle over reproductive rights. And if Tuesday’s arguments were any indication, the Court appears ready to hand a lifeline to a network of faith-driven pregnancy centers fighting off a sweeping state probe.
At the heart of the clash is First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a Christian organization that operates five facilities across New Jersey—locations known for guiding women away from abortion. The group has been tangled in a legal storm ever since the state’s attorney general pressed them for internal records, including the identities of their donors and medical staff.
The subpoena sparked a federal lawsuit, then a dismissal, then an appeal—and now, a moment before the Supreme Court that could reshape how advocacy groups shield their supporters from government demands.
During the arguments, several justices signaled frustration with New Jersey’s assertion that the subpoena posed no real threat until a judge enforced it. One justice pointed out the obvious: even the appearance of such a demand can silence speech just as effectively as an order. Donors, First Choice said, were already backing away.
Another justice pressed the state to imagine the fear on the other side of the equation: an ordinary supporter who wonders whether their name might someday land in an official file. That unease, the justice suggested, might be enough to raise constitutional red flags.
While New Jersey insists its probe is aimed at uncovering whether the centers misled clients into believing they provided abortion services, the Supreme Court wasn’t asked to weigh in on those accusations. Instead, the question is procedural yet consequential—whether First Choice should be allowed to push its constitutional challenge in federal court immediately, rather than be forced to fight only in state court.
First Choice maintains that the subpoena is inherently coercive, and points to a consumer alert issued by state officials warning the public that crisis pregnancy centers could offer misleading information. To them, that alert signaled hostility—and made the subpoena feel less like a neutral request and more like a targeted strike.
A state judge had previously recommended negotiating a narrower subpoena, leaving deeper constitutional issues for another day. But with the Supreme Court now engaged, that “other day” may be approaching faster than expected.
A decision is expected by late June—another high-stakes moment in a post-Roe landscape where battles over reproductive rights continue to find their way to the nation’s most scrutinized bench.
