\n<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court agreed Wednesday that a New Jersey anti-abortion clinic should be able to challenge subpoenas issued by state officials seeking donor information.<\/p>\n
one in unanimous decision<\/a> Authored by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, the justices cleared the way for First Choice Women’s Resource Centers to bring a First Amendment challenge in federal court as it tries to fight the subpoena.<\/p>\n The ruling is a victory for the group, which alleged it was targeted by state investigators because it sought to discourage women from getting abortions. The New Jersey Office of the Attorney General has said the subpoena was part of an investigation into whether the group misled potential customers and donors into thinking it would offer abortions.<\/p>\n Justice Gorsuch wrote that “Since the 1950s, this Court has faced one official demand after another from the Attorney General” and “again and again, we have found those demands burdensome on the exercise of First Amendment rights.”<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n The question before the judges was a technical one \u2013 whether the group would have to go through the process of challenging the subpoena in state court before bringing a First Amendment challenge in federal court. The judge agreed that the group had already been injured and could proceed with its federal lawsuit.<\/p>\n Although the case did not focus solely on abortion rights, it came against the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.<\/p>\n A year after the court’s conservative majority struck down the constitutional right to abortion, New Jersey’s attorney general at the time, Matthew J. Platkin issued an investigative subpoena, seeking donor information from First Choice Women’s Resource Centers.<\/p>\n The organization brought a challenge in federal court, arguing that the effort to obtain fundraising information had a chilling effect on the group’s First Amendment rights. lawyer for the group Argued in court filings<\/a> The Attorney General “made no secret of his hostility toward pregnancy centers”, calling the subpoena “offensive”.<\/p>\n Lower courts found that the group’s legal challenge was premature because the subpoenas had not yet been ordered to take effect by a state judge. Anti-abortion centers then asked the Supreme Court to intervene and clear the way for a federal challenge.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n