2026年4月29日 美国东部时间上午10:21 / 《华盛顿邮报》
非营利组织和倡导团体密切关注此案，因为判决结果可能会影响他们挫败许多人眼中出于政治动机的调查的能力。
作者：普丽维娜·索马桑德拉姆
和
贾斯汀·朱文纳尔
最高法院周三以一致裁决裁定，一家信仰基反堕胎怀孕中心连锁店可以就其捐赠者传票一事在联邦法院提起诉讼，该中心称这是新泽西州官员出于敌意的反堕胎观点而开展的恐吓运动的一部分。
大法官们支持第一选择女性资源中心公司，该公司称新泽西州总检察长马修·J·普拉特金（民主党）的要求冷却了其言论和与捐赠者结社的第一修正案权利，因为披露捐赠者信息可能会让支持者不愿捐款。
此案考验了一项技术性法律问题，但跨意识形态阵营的非营利组织和倡导团体都密切关注此案，因为判决结果可能会影响他们自身挫败他们眼中州政府官员越权行为的能力。
在提交给最高法院的诉状中，多个组织指出，拥有对抗出于政治动机调查的途径对非营利组织和其他倡导团体至关重要。
其中包括美国公民自由联盟，该联盟公开承认在堕胎政策上与第一选择立场不同，但签署了一份法庭之友简报，称此类广泛的传票可能“危及所有倡导活动”。
此案始于2023年，当时普拉特金发出传票，作为调查第一选择是否通过虚假声称提供堕胎转诊服务来欺骗客户和捐赠者的一部分。一项州调查发现，第一选择的一些面向客户的网站和捐赠页面隐瞒或模糊了其反堕胎使命。第一选择否认有任何不当行为。
第一选择在新泽西州拥有五家中心，自称是“提供最佳护理和关于您怀孕及妊娠选择的最新信息的诊所网络”。
第一选择没有提交任何文件。相反，该非营利组织在联邦法院提起诉讼，辩称总检察长的要求违反了其第一修正案权利。
此案的核心问题是第一选择的主张是否“成熟”。要在联邦法院提起诉讼，原告必须证明他们遭受了实际伤害，而非假设性伤害。
普拉特金为获取第一选择的记录而发出的传票要求新泽西州的一家州法院下令执行该传票。迄今为止，一名州法官已责令第一选择回应传票，但尚未要求其实际提交记录。
出于这一原因，新泽西州辩称第一选择无法证明其遭受了具体伤害。第一选择反驳称，传票的威胁已足够构成紧迫性，符合成熟性标准。大法官们认可了这一论点。
在上诉至最高法院之前，下级法院已作出不利于第一选择的裁决。特朗普政府在本案中支持第一选择的立场。
与第一选择一样，美国各地的许多怀孕中心（也称为“危机怀孕中心”）都以信仰为基础，旨在劝阻妇女堕胎。中心工作人员会劝说妇女将妊娠进行到足月，并帮助她们获取照顾新生儿的基本资源。
2022年罗伊诉韦德案被推翻后，保守派议员通过公共资助加强了怀孕中心的工作。与此同时，堕胎权倡导者准备对抗这些中心的宣传活动，他们称这些宣传经常模糊其反堕胎使命。
这些争执在全国各地的法院上演。
今年2月，马萨诸塞州一名联邦法官驳回了该州一家怀孕中心连锁店提起的第一修正案诉讼。2024年，该州启动一场公开运动敦促妇女避开怀孕中心后，该连锁店起诉了马萨诸塞州官员和一个生殖权利组织。
Supreme Court says antiabortion center can fight subpoena for donors
2026-04-29 10:21 a.m. EDT / The Washington Post
Nonprofits and advocacy groups followed the case closely because the result could affect their ability to foil what many see as politically motivated inquiries.
The Supreme Court building. (Shedrick Pelt/For The Washington Post)
By Praveena Somasundaram
and
Justin Jouvenal
The Supreme Court held unanimously on Wednesday that a chain of faith-based antiabortion pregnancy centers can mount a federal court challenge to a subpoena for its donors that it claims is part of an intimidation campaign by New Jersey officials hostile to its views on abortion.
The justices sided with First Choice Women’s Resource Centers Inc., which claimed the request by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin (D) chilled its First Amendment rights to speech and association with donors because disclosure might make supporters leery of contributing money.
The case tested a technical legal issue, but nonprofits and advocacy groups across the ideological spectrum followed it closely because the outcome could affect their own ability to thwart what they see as overreach by state officials.
In briefs submitted to the court, a number of organizations noted that having an avenue to fight politically motivated investigations was crucial for nonprofits and other advocacy-based groups.
Among them was the American Civil Liberties Union, which publicly acknowledged it did not fall on the same side as First Choice when it came to abortion policy but signed onto an amicus brief, saying that such broad subpoenas could “put all advocacy at risk.”
The case began in 2023, when Platkin issued his subpoena as part of an investigation into whether First Choice was deceiving clients and donors by falsely suggesting it offered abortion referrals. A state probe found some First Choice client-facing websites and donor pages elided or obscured its antiabortion mission. First Choice denies any wrongdoing.
First Choice, which has five centers in New Jersey, bills itself as a “network of clinics providing the best care and most up-to-date information on your pregnancy and pregnancy options.”
First Choice did not hand over any documents. Instead, the nonprofit sued in federal court, arguing that the attorney general’s request violated its First Amendment rights.
The question at the heart of the case is whether First Choice’s claims are “ripe.” To bring legal action in federal court, plaintiffs are required to show they have suffered an actual harm, not a hypothetical one.
The subpoena that Platkin issued for First Choice’s records requires a state court in New Jersey to order its enforcement. To date, a state judge has told First Choice to respond to the subpoena but has yet to demand that it actually turn over the records.
For that reason, New Jersey said First Choice could not demonstrate it had suffered a concrete harm. First Choice countered that the threat of the subpoena was chilling enough to meet the ripeness test. The justices embraced that argument.
Lower courts had ruled against First Choice before it appealed to the Supreme Court. The Trump administration has backed First Choice’s position in the case.
Like First Choice, many pregnancy centers across the United States, also called “crisis pregnancy centers,” are faith-based and operate with the goal of deterring women from having abortions. Center staff work to persuade women instead to carry their pregnancies to term and help them access basic resources to care for newborns.
After the fall of Roe v. Wade in 2022, conservative lawmakers bolstered the pregnancy centers’ work with public funding. At the same time, abortion rights advocates readied themselves to combat the centers’ messaging, which they say often blurs their antiabortion mission.
Those feuds have played out in courts across the country.
In February, a federal judge in Massachusetts dismissed a First Amendment lawsuit brought by a chain of pregnancy centers in the state. The chain sued Massachusetts officials and a reproductive rights organization in 2024 after the state launched a public campaign urging women to avoid pregnancy centers.
发表回复