U.S. Supreme Court Allows Faith-Based Pregnancy Center to Challenge Donor Subpoena in Federal Court

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a New Jersey faith-based pregnancy center, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, may challenge a state subpoena demanding donor information in federal court. This ruling reverses a lower court’s decision that had previously deemed the lawsuit premature, allowing the case to proceed in federal court.

The center had raised concerns under the First Amendment about whether it could immediately challenge the subpoena in federal court or if it needed to first navigate the state court system. The subpoena, issued by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin in 2023, sought donor information, including names, addresses, and places of employment. Platkin’s investigation into crisis pregnancy centers like First Choice was based on claims that such centers may provide misleading information about the safety and legality of abortion.

First Choice, a faith-based nonprofit, describes itself as providing material support and medical services such as ultrasounds and pregnancy tests to women in New Jersey. The organization emphasizes that it neither provides nor refers for abortions. The case, titled First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport, has garnered support from various groups, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, members of Congress, the Trump administration, and the ACLU. These groups have agreed that First Choice should be able to challenge the subpoena in federal court without first litigating the issue in New Jersey state court.

Bishop Daniel E. Thomas, chair of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, expressed gratitude for the court’s decision, stating it protects the freedom of pregnancy help centers to serve mothers and children without harmful government intrusion. The USCCB had argued in an amicus brief that compelling the disclosure of a religious organization’s financial support violates the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. They contended that such a requirement would undermine the group’s religious mission and infringe upon the free-exercise rights of donors who choose to remain anonymous in accordance with their beliefs. This case underscores the importance of balancing governmental interests with the protection of religious freedoms, reflecting the biblical principle of justice and mercy as seen in Micah 6:8.

Source: Read the original report