The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on December 2, 2025, on whether a Christian pregnancy resource center in New Jersey may challenge a state attorney general’s subpoena in federal court before fully litigating the matter in state court. The case involves First Choice Women’s Resource Centers and New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin’s investigation into the center’s advertising and services, including its promotion of abortion pill reversal, and raises questions about donor privacy, free speech, and associational rights.
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a nonprofit that describes itself as a pro-life women’s health clinic, offers free pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, options counseling, and a parenting program that provides baby clothes, diapers, and other supplies. According to the Daily Wire, the organization has operated since 1985 and says it has served more than 36,000 women through centers in New Brunswick, Newark, Morristown, Montclair, and Jersey City.
In November 2023, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin issued an administrative subpoena to First Choice as part of an investigation into potential violations of the state’s Consumer Fraud Act, Charitable Registration and Investigation Act, and Professions and Occupations Law. Court summaries from the Legal Information Institute and other outlets state that the investigation focuses on whether First Choice misled donors and patients about its services, provided faulty medical advice, and failed to meet licensing requirements for health-care professionals.
The subpoena requested a broad range of materials, including information about First Choice’s donors, advertisements, communications and information provided to clients and donors, and personnel and medical-staff records. The Daily Wire reports that the state also sought documents related to the center’s promotion of abortion pill reversal, a protocol in which a woman who has taken the abortion drug mifepristone receives progesterone in an effort to counteract the medication’s effects.
First Choice, represented by the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, filed a federal lawsuit arguing that the subpoena is overly broad, chills its First Amendment rights to free speech and association, and infringes on the privacy of its donors and supporters. The organization maintains there were no specific findings of wrongdoing before the subpoena issued and contends that the state’s investigation is politically motivated.
In a press call described by the Daily Wire, Aimee Huber, executive director of First Choice, characterized the subpoena as a “fishing expedition” that was overwhelming for the small nonprofit. “If our attorney general can bully us, it can happen in other states that promote abortion,” Huber said. “It’s our hope that our efforts will result in protection for pregnancy centers across the nation.”
A federal district judge in New Jersey dismissed First Choice’s suit, finding that the challenge to the subpoena was not yet ripe because the state first needed to seek and obtain an enforcement order in state court. After Platkin initiated an enforcement action, a New Jersey state judge upheld the subpoena but directed the parties to negotiate a narrower scope and left open the possibility of further litigation over constitutional issues, according to reporting from the Associated Press and Reuters.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit later agreed with the district court, holding that First Choice had not shown an injury-in-fact sufficient to support federal jurisdiction at that stage because its constitutional claims could continue to be litigated in state court. First Choice then petitioned the Supreme Court to review the case, arguing that federal civil rights law entitles it to a federal forum to assert its First Amendment claims without waiting for contempt sanctions or the conclusion of state proceedings.
On June 16, 2025, the Supreme Court granted review in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin and agreed to consider whether, and under what circumstances, a party subject to a state attorney general’s investigatory subpoena may bring a pre-enforcement First Amendment challenge in federal court when a state court has not yet fully enforced the subpoena. The Court scheduled oral argument for December 2, 2025, during its term that begins in October.
Responding to the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case, Platkin publicly defended the subpoena as lawful and necessary. In a statement reported by the Daily Wire, he said that First Choice "has for years refused to answer questions about their operations in New Jersey and the potential misrepresentations they have been making, including about reproductive healthcare," and added, "I remain committed to enforcing our fraud laws without fear or favor against anyone who would harm or violate the rights of our residents."
Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Lincoln Wilson has framed the dispute as having broad implications for privacy and associational rights beyond the abortion debate. “Any organization, right or left, no matter which side of the aisle you’re on, there needs to be the ability to keep this information confidential,” he told the Daily Wire, arguing that if governments can demand donor lists on what the group views as a pretextual basis, it could chill participation across the political spectrum.
The U.S. Department of Justice, during the Biden administration, has filed an amicus brief supporting First Choice’s position that the case is justiciable. According to the Legal Information Institute’s summary of the brief, federal lawyers argued that a party may challenge a subpoena when it faces a credible threat that the government will pursue enforcement and that such a threat can constitute an injury-in-fact for purposes of Article III standing and ripeness.
The dispute comes against the backdrop of a broader national fight over "crisis pregnancy centers" and their promotion of abortion pill reversal. The Daily Wire and other outlets note that centers offering such protocols have faced regulatory and legal scrutiny in several Democratic-led states. In New York, for example, the attorney general filed suit in 2024 against multiple centers accused of deceptive advertising related to abortion pill reversal, and that litigation continues. Advocates for abortion rights say the safety and effectiveness of abortion pill reversal remain unproven, while pro-life organizations contend it can sometimes prevent a medication abortion from being completed.
New Jersey lawmakers and officials have moved in recent years to strengthen legal protections for abortion access. Critics of the state’s approach, including Huber, argue that this policy environment makes organizations that do not perform or refer for abortions more likely to face investigations and other government scrutiny.
