Morning Wire Weaponizing Government Against Pro-Lifers? Supreme Court Presses New Jersey
13 snips
Dec 6, 2025 Erin Hawley, Senior Counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom and expert in religious-liberty and pro-life litigation, discusses a pivotal Supreme Court case involving New Jersey's alleged targeting of a Christian pregnancy center. She highlights the justices' probing questions, indicating recognition of hostility toward pro-life organizations. Hawley warns of the chilling effect on donor privacy and argues for protections against the misuse of subpoenas by attorneys general. The conversation also touches on Planned Parenthood's influence and the broader implications for pro-life advocacy.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
State Power Versus Viewpoint Rights
- New Jersey's attorney general issued an intrusive subpoena demanding extensive records, including donor information, from a pro-life pregnancy center.
- The case raises broader questions about states' power to target organizations based on viewpoint and could set precedent for similar actions.
Justices Worry About Donor Chilling Effects
- Several justices expressed concern that the subpoena could chill First Amendment rights by exposing donors' identities.
- The Court's questioning suggested sympathy for the idea that harassment and hostile government statements matter when evaluating constitutional chill.
No Complaints, Yet Aggressive Action
- The New Jersey AG admitted he had no complaints specifically about First Choice before issuing actions, weakening the stated basis for the subpoena.
- Erin Hawley argued that unprompted, retaliatory subpoenas suggest viewpoint discrimination and echo prior donor-protection precedents.