Supreme Court Sides With Anti-Abortion Clinic in Fight Over Donor Records
Source: NY Times
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.”
Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/29/us/politics/supreme-court-abortion-subpoena.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
angrychair
(12,424 posts)Has just taken the mask off and gone full fascist apparently.
reACTIONary
(7,261 posts).... so the liberals on the court are now fascist?
In principle, this is a ruling that supports first amendment rights in the face of legal harassment. Doesn't sound fascist to me.
angrychair
(12,424 posts)If the system is supporting and protecting people that seek to misinform or harm others while pretending to give medical advice or opinions.
People have a right to know who is funding an organization that is actively trying to gaslight women into not getting what could be a medically necessary abortion.
reACTIONary
(7,261 posts)... pretending to give medical advice or opinions"
Whether that is the case or not hasn't been decided as of yet. That is what the trial is about.
What is "fascist" is using the power of the state to harass people who are exercising their first amendment rights. That may or may not be so in this case, but that is what the trial and the challenge to the subpoena are aimed at determining.
I put "fascist" in scare quotes because this whole "you're the fascist - no YOU'RE the fascist" back and forth is pretty much bullshit. IMHO.
angrychair
(12,424 posts)Is as much about "free speech" as it is about the sky being purple.
Interesting that it's about "free speech" when it comes to religion or conservative talking points but less so for people speaking out about those conservative talking points or people.
Multiple pro-democracy content creators have been "visited" by a whole host of alphabet agencies asking them questions about their content because of its criticism of this administration and asking them to come in for questioning while also telling them they didn't break any laws.
That is fascism. That is why I say it's fascism. Because it's only ever about "freedom of speech" when it agrees with Republican talking points.
reACTIONary
(7,261 posts).... the sea shell indictment. It's time for this shit to stop.
As the justices, all of them, said...
"Since the 1950s, this Court has confronted one official demand after another like the Attorney General’s. Over and again, we have held those demands burden the exercise of First Amendment rights."
It's time for this shit to stop... Whichever side is doing it.
pat_k
(13,636 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 30, 2026, 10:10 PM - Edit history (1)
So, they can argue in Federal Court that the subpoena violates the constitution in some way -- too broad or whatever, but claiming "the subpoena violates free speech" won't go far in the face of sufficient probable cause. If they have credible complaints, those complaints warrant investigation. Free speech does not protect speech used to perpetrate a fraud, I would thihk especially if the fraudsters attempt to capitalize on status as "people of faith." FWIW, I suspect that abhorrence of such hucksters runs deep in the American psyche, but what do I know?
I'm no lawyer, but seems to me, when free-speech crosses into a "bait and switch" scheme to defraud the subpoena should stand in the interests of justice.
I'd guess that, like a warrant, it will ultimately come down to having sufficient probable cause.
Polybius
(22,034 posts)Whenever I start with a differing viewpoint and the Supreme Court decides with a 9-0 vote, I tend to reconsider my stance.
angrychair
(12,424 posts)And I continue to find it to be the wrong decision.
Decisions like these, as is the case here, only seem to benefit Republican leaning organizations.
"Freedom of Religion" per SCOTUS seems to only apply to Christians (Texas 10 commandments law)
"Freedom of Speech" per SCOTUS only seems to be when Democrats are asking the questions.
Because right now pro-democracy content creators all over this country are getting visits by federal agents asking them questions about their content and asking questions about other content creators they know. Saying "you didn't break the law, we just want to ask some questions and express some concerns"
As I have repeatedly said here the Constitution is a paper tiger. It's only value is for the rich and power to use the court system to create themselves loopholes or legal protection for their actions but the common people do not have that kind of access. People like me do not have anywhere near the time, money or resources to fight in court to prove my rights were violated.
Thousands of people have their rights violated every day and just do nothing but accept it because their is no alternative unless you already have money and power.
eggplant
(4,222 posts)If we don't want to show our information, they shouldn't have to either. So this ruling likely helps pro-choice organizations as well.
angrychair
(12,424 posts)To be fair I am not a lawyer but in the past this court has been very careful to craft rulings with as limited a scope as possible to ensure it doesn't harm any Republican talking points or objectives. More likely than not this case is limited to this specific instance and no one else.
This court is not interested in helping regular people but just furthering the agenda of people like Leonard Leo and the Christian Taliban.
reACTIONary
(7,261 posts)"Since the 1950s, this Court has confronted one official demand after another like the Attorney General’s. Over and again, we have held those demands burden the exercise of First Amendment rights."
That doesn't sound very limited to me.
angrychair
(12,424 posts)Five weeks ago a friend of a friend that had a IG account and was using it to speak out against this administration got a visit from federal agents, making clear that he hadn't broken the law but they just wanted to talk to him about his content and people he might know that post content like he does.
He is not some well known content creator nor is he wealthy enough to have a lawyer on speed dial. He just deleted all his social media accounts and is trying to fade into obscurity because what other choice does he have and he isn't the only one that's done that.
Honestly, if it happened to me I would do the same. Most people don't have the ability or time to fight the whole US government. That is what they are counting on.
All that to say that the way courts work now is pay to play. Want your rights? Sure. Got hundreds of thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of free time to fight a faceless entity in court that has literally unlimited money and time?
99.9% of people do not.
pat_k
(13,636 posts)... beliefs on those who do not share those beliefs as a matter of law.
I have also found that he scrupulously avoids analyses that actually present the implications in his writings. I haven't read this one yet, but I suspect that to get sign on of Kagan, Jackson, and Sotomayor, much that he would have liked to have put into the opinion was purged, and other analyses added, therefore making it far less likely to be used as the kind of Christian Nationalist cudgel he seeks.
I have no doubt that he attempted to reinforce protection of "religious" (i.e., Christian) "ministries" from government investigation, but I believe the minority on the court are pretty savvy people and I suspect they only signed on when the language was altered to ensure the only thing accomplished was to set the threshold for probable cause a bit higher when balanced against the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right -- which is not a bad thing IMO.
Of course, I could be flat wrong, but I just don't see Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson joining in a decision that could later be employed as a cudgel by Christian nationalists.
As far as some of the most egregious Gorsuch acts in the service of Christian nationalists: Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022), Carson v. Makin (2022) and Gorsuch concurrences and dissents in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (2020) & Dr. A v. Hochul (2021)
Prairie Gates
(8,377 posts)There's a game being played here.
Don't indulge it.
reACTIONary
(7,261 posts).... here is the full ruling https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-781_pok0.pdf
I found this interesting:
a group. It is enough to discourage groups from expressing dissident views. A government that chooses to make private donor information public may make the damage worse. But “[e]ven if there [is] no disclosure to the general public, the pressure” to avoid ties and speech “which might displease” officials demanding disclosure can “be constant and heavy.” Shelton, 364 U. S., at 486; see also AFP, 594 U. S., at 616 (“assurances of confidentiality . . . do not eliminate” the First Amendment injury caused by a demand for private member or donor information). Just ask yourself, would it have been an answer in NAACP v. Alabama if the State’s Attorney General promised to keep the NAACP’s membership rolls to himself?
angrychair
(12,424 posts)Court rulings like this aren't relevant. Ironically the point they are making is still reality Even if the court rules that such requests violate the first amendment of "free speech" because at the end of the day you will have to defend that right in court and unless you have unlimited money and time, like being bankrolled by billionaires, more likely than not, like this organization in this case, you have no way to defend that so-called rights.
The Constitution is a paper tiger and has been weaponized by the wealthy and powerful. In most cases people have zero ability to fight for this stuff and I know if I ever get visited I will just delete everything and keep my mouth shut because what other choice do I have? I cannot pay some fancy lawyer a thousand dollars a second to defend me in court. That is why this ruling is meaningless and only for the wealthy and powerful.
reACTIONary
(7,261 posts).... because you could be easily intimidated by government investigation and disclosure, we should make it easer on the government to intimidate through investigation and disclosure.
I think we should make it hard, if not impossible for the government to inhibit free speech through disclosure. That is what this ruling will accomplish.
angrychair
(12,424 posts)That ruling only applies to people that can defend it in court.
If a government agency came demanding information, even if it was protected speech, what alis someone like me supposed to do? Tell them them they are violating my rights and cite this case? That literally is meaningless.
My choices are give up the information or go to court. Since I cannot afford to go to court then my only choice is to give up the information or go to jail. Lose my job? Lose my house?
We are living in an era where rights are only for those with the time and money to fight for them in court.
reACTIONary
(7,261 posts)... that was established to protect the NAACP from harassment by Alabama in 1958, and has protected civil rights organization and others since then. You seem to be advocating that the court invalidate this protection so that states can harass advocacy organization at will.
Is it correct that you would have preferred the court to overturn NAACP VS Alabama and to allow this harassment to go on unimpeded? Or do you support this precedent and the protection it has and continues to provide?
As far as inequities in the administration of justice is concerned, I'm no billionaire, but I am a card carrying member of the ACLU, and my participation along with many others has proven to be an effective deterrent to civil rights violations and harassment. In fact, my participation helped to support the ACLU's amicus brief in this case. As well as the many others that we have won.
pat_k
(13,636 posts)I'm no lawyer, but seems to me, when free-speech crosses into a "bait and switch" scheme to defraud the subpoena should stand in the interests of justice.
I'd guess that, like a warrant, it would come down to having sufficient probable cause. So, they can argue in Federal Court that the subpoena violates the constitution in some way -- too broad or whatever, but claiming "the subpoena violates free speech" won't go far in the face of sufficient probable cause. If they have credible complaints, those complaints warrant investigation. Free speech does not protect speech used to perpetrate a fraud.