12/02/2025
Thank you for your prayers.
Here is an update on the case heard today at the Supreme Court today from David Bereit, Executive Director, Life Leadership Conference and "Protect Pregnancy Centersâ Webcast Host
Here are the key moments and concerns raised inside the courtroom:
Erin Hawley explained that First Choiceâand its donorsâwere harmed the moment the subpoena arrived because it demanded donor names, phone numbers, addresses, and even workplaces âon pain of contempt,â which would immediately chill ordinary supporters.
Multiple Justices questioned New Jerseyâs motives, noting that the Attorney General had created a âstrike forceâ against crisis pregnancy centersâa point the Court directly referenced when discussing whether this was part of a targeted government campaign rather than a neutral investigation.
Justices pressed why the Attorney General demanded donor identities despite admitting there was no complaint against First Choice and despite already having spent two years unsuccessfully seeking enforcement in state court. Several Justices suggested this raised legitimate concerns.
Justices on both sides of the ideological spectrum highlighted how an ordinary donor would react to receiving a subpoena tied to a government âstrike force,â suggesting that the chill on First Amendment association is not abstractâitâs common sense.
New Jerseyâs attorney insisted that since its subpoenas require a courtâs approval before punishment, First Choice has not been harmed âyet.â But multiple Justices pushed back, pointing out that donors cannot be expected to understand nuanced legal distinctions when their privacy is on the line.
When New Jersey argued donors might have been âmisled,â Erin Hawley noted that First Choiceâs websiteâwith smiling babies and familiesâcould not reasonably be confused with Planned Parenthood or with an abortion provider.
The core legal issue the Court centered on: âDoes the constitutional injury begin when the subpoena arrives, or only after a later court order?â The answer determines whether pregnancy centers may access federal courtâor whether hostile state officials can trap them at home.
In closing, Erin Hawley reminded the Court that allowing states to demand donor lists without federal review would undo decades of donor privacy protections secured in cases like NAACP v. Alabama.
A formal Supreme Court decision will come later this termânormally closer to Juneâbut your prayers were felt.
Three Ways to Stand With Pregnancy Centers Today
1. Pray Fervently: Pray for the Justices as they deliberate, for Erin Hawley and the legal team, for Aimee Huber and First Choice, and for every center facing intimidation or legal pressure nationwide.
2. Share Widely: Share this email, the webcast replay, as well as the new national Pregnancy Center Report and sharable infographic from last nightâs briefingâso more people can understand the truth behind the âfake clinicâ smear and the extraordinary impact of pregnancy centers.
3. Give Generously: Support your local pregnancy centerâevery gift matters. And because today just happens to also be Giving Tuesday, itâs a providential moment to stand with them. If youâre able, a gift around $447, the national average to empower one mom to choose life, makes a real impact.
A Hopeful Closing for This Historic Moment
Today, the Supreme Court seriously engaged with the danger of government overreach targeted at pro-life ministries. Regardless of where the Justices land on the technical legal theories, the concern for donor privacy, free speech, and First Amendment freedom was unmistakable.
Pregnancy centers were well represented, the truth was clearly heard, and this movementâs resolve was visible in the courtroom.
For life,
David Bereit
Executive Director, Life Leadership Conference
âProtect Pregnancy Centersâ Webcast Host
