Top 5 Moments From SCOTUS Arguments In Key Pro-Life Pregnancy Center Case

By: Shawn Fleetwood, originally published December 3, 2025, The Federalist

‘Now I don’t know how to read that other than it’s pretty self-executing to me, counsel,’ said Justice Neil Gorsuch.

The U.S. Supreme Court held  oral arguments  in a key case on Tuesday that involves New Jersey’s targeting of a state-based pro-life pregnancy center.

Known as  First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin , the case came to fruition several years ago after New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, a Democrat, filed a subpoena against First Choice Women’s Resource Centers seeking to obtain “ years’ worth ” of data (internal communications and donor information) from the organization. As  summarized  by Oyez, the state’s seemingly partisan inquiry stemmed from investigators’ concerns that First Choice was allegedly misleading its donors and clients “about its services, staff qualifications, and medical practices.”

While proceedings related to the subpoena remained ongoing in state court, First Choice filed a lawsuit  challenging  its legality in federal court. A district court and the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the suit as “unripe,” arguing that the matter can’t be examined in federal court due to ongoing state proceedings and the fact that the subpoena had yet to be enforced.

With no other options, First Choice  petitioned  SCOTUS to take up the case and address the question 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?”

During Tuesday’s  oral arguments, the justices probed parties on the facts of the case and whether First Choice has standing to sue in federal court while state proceedings remain ongoing. Here are some of the biggest moments from the hearing.

Thomas Exposes New Jersey’s Absurd Subpoena Standards

During an exchange about the subpoena against First Choice. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas homed in on the weight a subpoena carries in comparison to a request from an administrative agency. He specifically asked Platkin’s chief counsel, Sundeep Iyer, to differentiate between a subpoena like the one issued by the New Jersey AG’s office and a request.

Iyer argued that “this subpoena is a predicate under state law for the state executive branch to be able to go to a court to seek a court order requiring production,” and that they “couldn’t do that if we had just sent a letter request.” More notably, however, he attempted to claim that “in other critical respects, there’s really not a difference in terms of the legal obligations that are actually imposed upon a recipient of a subpoena.”

The response didn’t seem to satisfy Thomas, who asked Iyer once again to address his original question. In his response, Iyer claimed that “there is not a difference in terms of the change in legal obligations for Petitioner.”

To underscore Iyer’s weak argument, Thomas proceeded to read directly from New Jersey law regarding the issuance of subpoenas, which appears to contradict the claim put forward by Platkin’s chief counsel.

“So, if I were to request these documents from an organization as an administrative agency, would I write this sentence: Failure to comply with this request — and I’m substituting … ‘request’ for ‘subpoena’ — failure to comply with this request may render you liable for contempt of court?” Thomas asked. “How would I write that …?”

Iyer admitted that the subpoena “does say exactly what [Thomas] said, and it says that an individual who receives the subpoena is commanded to produce.” In an apparent effort to weasel out of the tough questioning, he then pointed to an appendix on the subpoena that “says that one entirely appropriate way for a party to respond is to object to some or even all of the requests contained in the subpoena.”

Gorsuch Grills New Jersey on ‘Non-Self-Executing’ Subpoenas

Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch took Iyer to task on New Jersey’s position that the subpoena against First Choice is non-self-executing (i.e. that it’s not automatically enforceable). He specifically pointed to New Jersey law, which he seemingly surmised contradicts the state’s argument.

“[J]ust looking at the statute, it says the AG’s subpoenas have the force of law, and if a person fails to obey the subpoena, the AG may apply to the superior court and obtain an order adjudging such person in contempt of court,” Gorsuch said. “Now I don’t know how to read that other than it’s pretty self-executing to me, counsel. Now … maybe that’s anomalous. Maybe that’s wrong. Maybe the New Jersey Supreme Court read it differently. But that’s not the materials I have before me, so help me out.”

As part of his reasoning, Iyer cited a past New Jersey Supreme Court decision ( Silverman v. Berkson ) dealing with state agencies’ subpoena power, which prompted Gorsuch to interject and ask whether he believes that decision answers his original question.

“I do think  Silverman  speaks very strongly to that question,” Iyer said, to which Gorsuch replied, “Speaks strongly to the question. That’s a little bit different, counsel.”

Barrett Catches New Jersey Flat-Footed

When questioning Iyer, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett probed the New Jersey AG official about his opening statement, in which he, as summarized by the justice, argued that if the Supreme Court adopted plaintiffs’ “ pre-enforcement   theory,” then the court “would be throwing the door open wide and that there would be all manner of challenges in federal court to subpoenas issued in New Jersey.”

In an attempt to further ascertain the logic behind the state’s reasoning, Barrett asked Iyer to provide her with “some examples of this Pandora’s box.”

Seemingly caught off guard, Iyer admitted that “It’s a difficult question to answer.” He then attempted to claim that it’s hard to provide such an answer, “in part, because this would represent a pretty dramatic sea change in historical practice.”

“Petitioner and the United States haven’t identified a single case that adopts this credible threat of enforcement theory for subpoenas in particular,” Iyer said. “So, this would be a pretty extraordinary change. And I think the risk would be that federal courts would potentially be inundated by these subpoena cases.”

“In what kinds of cases? And are we only talking about First Amendment cases? Are we talking about other constitutional challenges?” Barrett asked.

Iyer replied that the  argument  put forward by the United States — which sided with First Choice in the case — would apply to First Amendment challenges, as well as “Fourth Amendment challenges … due process challenges, [and] extraterritoriality challenges.”

Roberts and Gorsuch Blast New Jersey’s Dismissal of Potential First Amendment Violations

Iyer also faced extensive grilling from Chief Justice John Roberts, who probed the defendant on whether he believes First Choice has credible concerns that their First Amendment rights are being chilled by the state’s subpoena. He specifically asked, “Do you think there is a credible chilling effect from the state seeking full names, phone numbers, addresses, present or last known place of employment, of every one of their donors who gave through any means other than the one specific website?”

In disagreeing with First Choice’s position, Iyer claimed that “if you look at [the group’s] complaint allegations, all of the harms they identified are tethered to a future downstream state court order requiring disclosure, but they’re not tethered to the subpoena itself.” In other words, he argued, plaintiffs’ “allegations are focused on the harms from the disclosure of documents that identify First Choice’s donors, but all of those harms, again, are contingent on a future downstream state court [order].”

That answer didn’t appear to sit well with the chief justice, who further probed Iyer on whether he believes that the state’s actions “might have an effect on future potential donors to the organization to know that their name, phone number, address, etc. could be disclosed as a result of the subpoena.”

“It certainly has not in this case,” Iyer replied, to which Roberts asked, “How do you know that?”

After attempting to answer the chief justice’s inquiry, Roberts interjected and again questioned how the state would go about getting that evidence to bolster such a claim.

“Well, how do you get that evidence? Somebody comes in and say[s], ‘I’m chilled, I don’t want to reveal my name, address, phone number, etc., and here is my affidavit.’ That’s not going to work, is it?” Roberts asked.

“I absolutely think that that is something they could have pled here, but they did not plead it,” said Iyer, who subsequently downplayed comments from a group of anonymous First Choice donors who said they “would have been less likely to donate to First Choice if [they] had known information about the donation might be disclosed.”

Iyer’s claim that “that’s a backwards-looking statement of harm” and is “not about prospective chill” prompted a rebuke from Gorsuch, who admonished the New Jersey official for “pick[ing] over the tense of a verb that they chose.”

Thomas Nukes New Jersey’s Lawfare with One Question

In his questioning of Iyer, Thomas focused in on Platkin’s rationale for subpoenaing private information from First Choice in the first place. He specifically asked Iyer whether the state AG’s office received “any complaints that formed the basis of [his] concern about the fundraising activities [by First Choice].”

After initially attempting to avoid addressing the question, a follow-up question from Thomas resulted in Iyer disclosing that Platkin’s office hasn’t “had complaints about this specific [center],” claiming he “thinks” this was made “clear from the outset.”

Read more about the full exchange  here.

Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington.

The post Top 5 Moments From SCOTUS Arguments In Key Pro-Life Pregnancy Center Case appeared first on Cincinnati Right to Life.