대법원, 낙태 반대 진료소의 기부자 정보 공개 명령에 대한 소송 허가

A crisis pregnancy group had asked the justices to allow it to sue in federal court over a demand for donor information by New Jersey officials.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed that a New Jersey anti-abortion clinic should be able to challenge a subpoena issued by state officials seeking donor information.

In a unanimous decision written 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.

The ruling is a victory for the group, which alleged it had been targeted by state investigators because it sought to discourage women from having abortions. The New Jersey Office of the Attorney General has said the subpoena was part of an investigation into whether the group had misled potential clients and donors into thinking it offered abortions.

Justice Gorsuch wrote that “since the 1950s, this court has confronted one official demand after another like the attorney general’s” and “over and again, we have held those demands burden the exercise of First Amendment rights.”

The question before the justices was a technical one — whether the group must first go through a process to challenge the subpoena in state court before bringing a First Amendment challenge in federal court. The justices agreed the group had already suffered an injury and could proceed in its federal lawsuit.

Although the case did not squarely focus on abortion rights, it unfolded against the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The year after the court’s conservative supermajority ended 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.

The organization brought a challenge in federal court, arguing that the effort to seek fund-raising information had a chilling effect on the group’s First Amendment rights. Lawyers for the group argued in court filings that the attorney general had “made no secret of his hostility toward pregnancy centers,” calling the subpoena “invasive.”

Lower courts found that the group’s legal challenge was premature because the subpoena had not yet been ordered to go into effect by a state judge. The anti-abortion centers then asked the Supreme Court to intervene and clear the way for the federal challenge.

The Trump administration weighed in to support the anti-abortion centers, urging the justices to allow the group to challenge the subpoena and calling the case “simple” because the centers would face “concrete injuries” should they potentially have to turn over the records.

The dispute led to some unusual alliances before the court. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the anti-abortion centers, asserting that “a subpoena seeking sensitive donor information can chill a disfavored speaker’s protected associations long before it’s ever enforced,” leading to “chilling protected speech and association before the government lifts a finger.”

Abbie VanSickle covers the United States Supreme Court for The Times. She is a lawyer and has an extensive background in investigative reporting.