Report by Carolyn McDonnell, M.A., J.D.1 and Brooke Paz2*

Please read the full debrief here.

Introduction and Summary of the Parties’ Arguments

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin on December 2, 2025.3 The case involves an overly broad investigatory subpoena the New Jersey Attorney General issued against First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc., a faith-based non-profit pregnancy center that serves women with material support and free, licensed medical care.4 The subpoena, among other information and documents, required First Choice to disclose the identities of its donors.5

The subpoena contradicted a long line of caselaw that has recognized that compelled disclosure of group affiliation—including disclosure of donors’ identities—can reasonably and objectively chill an organization’s First Amendment rights.6 In fact, the subpoena chilled First Choice’s speech and association with current and future donors, making the donors reluctant to continue or begin financially supporting the small nonprofit.7 Yet when First Choice sued in federal district court, the court held it did not have jurisdiction because the lawsuit was not ripe, meaning the pregnancy center had brought the case prematurely.8

The New Jersey Attorney General then filed an enforcement action in state court, and the litigation became procedurally messy. Upon remand from the Third Circuit, the district court again determined the federal case was unripe, which the Third Circuit affirmed under the prudential ripeness doctrine.9

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on the issue of: “Where the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, is a federal court in a first-filed action deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court?”10 Thirty-nine amicus briefs supported First Choice, ranging from the United States, Members of Congress, and pro-life organizations to Second Amendment supporters, religious liberty proponents, reporters advocating for freedom of the press, and the American Civil Liberties Union.11 In contrast, New Jersey only received three amicus briefs in support of its position.12

The oral argument centered around legal questions of jurisdiction and at what point the pregnancy center may bring its lawsuit in federal court to vindicate its fundamental rights of speech and association under the First Amendment. The pregnancy center argued that forcing it to litigate its First Amendment claim exclusively in state court until a disclosure order was issued “violates this Court’s decision in Knick [v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania], contradicts the courts’ virtually unflagging obligation to decide cases within their jurisdiction, and runs contrary to Section 1983.”13 First Choice advanced two theories of injury. First, New Jersey’s demand for donor identities imposed an associational chill, deterring supporters from exercising their First Amendment rights. Second, the subpoena itself created a credible pre-enforcement threat, causing fear of sufficiently imminent enforcement. As First Choice contended, subpoena in Latin means “under penalty.”14 Further, the subpoena itself referenced contempt or business dissolution should First Choice choose not to comply. In fact, by the time this case was filed, the New Jersey Attorney General had already sought court enforcement and alleged First Choice violated three state laws by refusing to comply with the subpoena. 

The United States participated in the oral argument as a friend of the court in support of the pregnancy center. The federal government focused on the credible threat of pre-enforcement theory, arguing that Article III standing should be recognized for a plaintiff who “faces a credible threat that the subpoena will be enforced against it.”15 In the Solicitor General’s view, associational chill was a weaker theory because it relates more to the merits of a First Amendment injury claim rather than the issue of standing. The federal government requested the Court rely on the credible threat framework, emphasizing that subpoenas inherently carry enforcement consequences, regardless of whether they are self-executing. 

New Jersey rejected both theories of standing, contending that First Choice cannot proceed in federal court because the administrative subpoena is non-self-executing, and therefore imposes no legal duty to comply unless a state court issues an enforcement order. New Jersey’s advocate characterized the subpoena as a mere request and maintained that First Choice provided no evidence of actual donor chill. According to New Jersey, any alleged harm is speculative and contingent on potential future judicial action rather than arising from the subpoena itself. Although they acknowledged that standing may exist where a subpoena—combined with additional government conduct—establishes a concrete injury, they argued such circumstances are not present here. New Jersey further warned that adopting a credible pre-enforcement threat theory could open a “Pandora’s box” of federal challenges to the tens of thousands of subpoenas issued by state and local authorities every year. 

As the Supreme Court considers the parties’ arguments, its decision will impact broader questions of abortion alternatives and public interest advocacy. Please read the full debrief, including the analysis of questions the Justices posed to the parties and next steps.

  1. Litigation Counsel, Americans United for Life. Email: Carolyn.McDonnell@aul.org. ↩︎
  2. ** Legal Fellow, Americans United for Life. J.D. Candidate, 2027, Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. ↩︎
  3. No. 24-781 (Dec. 2, 2025). ↩︎
  4. Brief for Petitioner at 8–9, First Choice, No. 24-781. ↩︎
  5. Id. ↩︎
  6. Ams. for Prosperity Found. v. Bonta, 594 U.S. 595 (2021); NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958). ↩︎
  7. Petition for a Writ of Certiorari Appendix at 177a, 180a–84a, First Choice, No. 24-781. ↩︎
  8. Id. at 80a. ↩︎
  9. Id. at 4a–5a. ↩︎
  10. Petition for a Writ of Certiorari at i, First Choice, No. 24-781. ↩︎
  11. First Choice, No. 24-781. ↩︎
  12. Id. ↩︎
  13. Transcript of Oral Argument at 4–5, First Choice, No. 24-781 (citing Knick v. Twp. of Scott, Pa. 588 U.S. 180 (2019)). ↩︎
  14. Id. at 8. ↩︎
  15. Id. at 29. ↩︎

Print