Oral arguments before the Supreme Court on Tuesday took a surprising turn when Justice Elena Kagan appeared to side with her more conservative colleagues in a case involving a religion-based crisis pregnancy nonprofit challenging an investigative subpoena from New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin.
The case, First Choice Women's Resource Centers Inc. v. Platkin, hinges on whether the centers may challenge the broad 2023 subpoena in federal rather than state court — a procedural point with significant constitutional implications.
The attorney general's consumer protection division issued the subpoena as part of an investigation into whether the center misled patients and donors about services related to abortion — an allegation of deceptive marketing.
Crisis pregnancy centers have come under increased scrutiny in Democrat-led states since the Supreme Court in 2022 overturned Roe v. Wade, which established a nationwide right to abortion.
First Choice, which operates several pregnancy resource centers in New Jersey, argued the subpoena — demanding extensive donor records, internal documents and marketing materials — violates its First Amendment rights.
The group asserts that forced disclosure of donors and its internal communications chills free speech, threatens donor privacy, and hinders future contributions.
The nonprofit organization appealed to the Supreme Court after lower courts ruled the challenge was premature because the subpoena had not yet been enforced.
According to Newsweek, Chief Justice John Roberts asked why donors should feel comfortable with the government having access to their personal information.
"You don't think it might have an effect on potential future donors to the organization, to know that their name, phone number, address, et cetera, could be disclosed?" he asked New Jersey's attorney, Sundeep Iyer.
Iyer reportedly responded that the information the state is seeking would be used only to ask donors if they had been misled, stressing that no constitutional harm could occur before any court-ordered enforcement.
Kagan, however, pushed back on the government's argument in a moment of rare judicial alignment with the court's conservative wing.
"An ordinary person, one of the funders for this organization or any similar organization, presented with this subpoena, which asks for name, address, telephone number, email [address], contributions, and all kinds of other information, is not going to take that as very reassuring, that you're not going to use this information in ways that might compromise my privacy," Kagan said.
That comment resonated across the bench, illustrating a shared unease among several justices over the chilling effect of sweeping government inquiries into political or spiritual organizations. Even if the subpoena isn't yet enforced, the fear that donor identities might be exposed looms.
For First Choice, and possibly for a wide array of advocacy or religious groups nationwide, a ruling in their favor could reshape state investigations. It would give such groups access to federal courts to assert constitutional protections, without first being forced to exhaust state-court remedies.
That could establish a precedent shielding nonprofits from politically motivated subpoenas targeting donor lists.
For New Jersey and other states, the ruling could limit the power of attorneys general to use subpoenas as investigatory tools — or at least force them to proceed with narrower, more focused requests when dealing with sensitive donor or membership information.
With Kagan potentially poised to throw in with the high court's conservative justices, the stage is set for a ruling that could dramatically strengthen First Amendment protections for advocacy and religion-based nonprofits.
A ruling is expected by the end of June.
Newsmax wires contributed to this report.
Nicole Weatherholtz ✉
Nicole Weatherholtz, a Newsmax general assignment reporter covers news, politics, and culture. She is a National Newspaper Association award-winning journalist.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.