FAIL

Top 2025 religious freedom developments included mix of persecution, protection #Catholic null / Credit: Joe Belanger/Shutterstock Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Dec 19, 2025 / 06:00 am (CNA). Here is an overview of some of the religious freedom developments and news in the United States and abroad in 2025:White House started the Religious Liberty CommissionPresident Donald Trump established the White House Religious Liberty Commission in May to report on threats to religious freedom in the U.S. and seek to advance legal protections. The commission and advisory boards include members of various religions. Catholic members on the commission include Cardinal Timothy Dolan and Bishop Robert Barron. Catholic advisory board members include Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone, Bishop Thomas Paprocki, Bishop Kevin Rhoades, and Father Thomas Ferguson.Lawmakers condemned persecution of Christians Rep. Riley Moore, R-West Virginia, and Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, introduced a joint resolution condemning the persecution of Christians in Muslim-majority countries across the world.The measure called on the Trump administration to leverage trade, security negotiations, and other diplomatic tools to advocate for religious freedom. Court blocked law that would require priests to violate the seal of confessionWashington Gov. Bob Ferguson signed a state law in May that would require priests to report child abuse to authorities even if they hear about it during the sacrament of confession. Catholic bishops brought a lawsuit against the measure. A federal judge blocked the controversial law.Trump announced federal guidelines to protect prayer at public schoolsPresident Donald Trump announced the U.S. Department of Education will issue federal guidelines to protect prayer at public schools during a Sept. 8 Religious Liberty Commission hearing. He said the guidelines will “protect the right to prayer in our public schools and [provide for] its total protection.”The president said he sought the guidelines after hearing about instances of public school students and staff being censored and facing disciplinary action for engaging in prayer, reading the Bible, and publicly expressing their faith.Report found most states fail to safeguard religious liberty About three-fourths of states scored less than 50% on Napa Legal Institute’s religious freedom index, which measures how well states safeguard religious liberty for faith-based organizations. The October report was part of Napa’s Faith & Freedom Index that showed Alabama scored the highest and Michigan scored the lowest.Lawmakers urged federal court to allow Ten Commandments displayFirst Liberty Institute and Heather Gebelin Hacker of Hacker Stephens LLP filed an amicus brief in December on behalf of 46 United States lawmakers urging the federal court to allow the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public schools.Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana; Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas; and Sens. Ted Cruz and John Cornyn, R-Texas, were among the lawmakers who supported the cause after federal judges blocked Texas and Louisiana laws requiring the display of the commandments.Supreme Court ruled on religious freedom cases The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a group of Maryland parents who sued a school district over its refusal to allow families to opt their children out of reading LGBT-themed books. In a 6-3 decision on July 27 in Mahmoud v. Taylor, the court ruled the Catholic, Orthodox, and Muslim parents “are likely to succeed on their claim that the board’s policies unconstitutionally burden their religious exercise.” In July, the Supreme Court ordered the New York Court of Appeals to revisit Diocese of Albany v. Harris, which challenged a 2017 New York state mandate requiring employers to cover abortions in health insurance plans.In October, a Native American group working to stop the destruction of a centuries-old religious ritual site in Arizona lost its appeal to the Supreme Court.Religious liberty abroad: Religious freedom diminished in AfghanistanThe U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) said in a report that “religious freedom conditions in Afghanistan continue to decline dramatically under Taliban rule.”The USCIRF wrote in an Aug. 15 report examining the Taliban’s Law on the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice one year after its enactment: The morality law “impacts all Afghans” but “disproportionately affects religious minorities and women, eradicating their participation in public life and systematically eliminating their right to [freedom of religious belief].”Chinese government banned Catholic priests from evangelizing onlineIn September, the State Administration for Religious Affairs in China banned several forms of online evangelization for religious clergy of all religions, including Catholic priests.The Code of Conduct for Religious Clergy was made up of 18 articles including one that said faith leaders are banned from performing religious rituals through live broadcasts, short videos, or online meetings. U.S. commission said China should be designated as a country of particular concernThe USCIRF reported China tries to exert total control over religion and said the U.S. Department of State should redesignate China as a “country of particular concern” (CPC) regarding religious freedom.USCIRF said in September that China uses surveillance, fines, retribution against family members, imprisonment, enforced disappearance, torture, and other forms of abuse to control the Catholic Church and other religious communities in the nation.In its annual report, USCIRF also recommended Afghanistan, Burma, Cuba, Eritrea, India, Iran, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Vietnam be designated as CPCs.
Read More

Top 2025 religious freedom developments included mix of persecution, protection #Catholic null / Credit: Joe Belanger/Shutterstock Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Dec 19, 2025 / 06:00 am (CNA). Here is an overview of some of the religious freedom developments and news in the United States and abroad in 2025:White House started the Religious Liberty CommissionPresident Donald Trump established the White House Religious Liberty Commission in May to report on threats to religious freedom in the U.S. and seek to advance legal protections. The commission and advisory boards include members of various religions. Catholic members on the commission include Cardinal Timothy Dolan and Bishop Robert Barron. Catholic advisory board members include Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone, Bishop Thomas Paprocki, Bishop Kevin Rhoades, and Father Thomas Ferguson.Lawmakers condemned persecution of Christians Rep. Riley Moore, R-West Virginia, and Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, introduced a joint resolution condemning the persecution of Christians in Muslim-majority countries across the world.The measure called on the Trump administration to leverage trade, security negotiations, and other diplomatic tools to advocate for religious freedom. Court blocked law that would require priests to violate the seal of confessionWashington Gov. Bob Ferguson signed a state law in May that would require priests to report child abuse to authorities even if they hear about it during the sacrament of confession. Catholic bishops brought a lawsuit against the measure. A federal judge blocked the controversial law.Trump announced federal guidelines to protect prayer at public schoolsPresident Donald Trump announced the U.S. Department of Education will issue federal guidelines to protect prayer at public schools during a Sept. 8 Religious Liberty Commission hearing. He said the guidelines will “protect the right to prayer in our public schools and [provide for] its total protection.”The president said he sought the guidelines after hearing about instances of public school students and staff being censored and facing disciplinary action for engaging in prayer, reading the Bible, and publicly expressing their faith.Report found most states fail to safeguard religious liberty About three-fourths of states scored less than 50% on Napa Legal Institute’s religious freedom index, which measures how well states safeguard religious liberty for faith-based organizations. The October report was part of Napa’s Faith & Freedom Index that showed Alabama scored the highest and Michigan scored the lowest.Lawmakers urged federal court to allow Ten Commandments displayFirst Liberty Institute and Heather Gebelin Hacker of Hacker Stephens LLP filed an amicus brief in December on behalf of 46 United States lawmakers urging the federal court to allow the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public schools.Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana; Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas; and Sens. Ted Cruz and John Cornyn, R-Texas, were among the lawmakers who supported the cause after federal judges blocked Texas and Louisiana laws requiring the display of the commandments.Supreme Court ruled on religious freedom cases The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a group of Maryland parents who sued a school district over its refusal to allow families to opt their children out of reading LGBT-themed books. In a 6-3 decision on July 27 in Mahmoud v. Taylor, the court ruled the Catholic, Orthodox, and Muslim parents “are likely to succeed on their claim that the board’s policies unconstitutionally burden their religious exercise.” In July, the Supreme Court ordered the New York Court of Appeals to revisit Diocese of Albany v. Harris, which challenged a 2017 New York state mandate requiring employers to cover abortions in health insurance plans.In October, a Native American group working to stop the destruction of a centuries-old religious ritual site in Arizona lost its appeal to the Supreme Court.Religious liberty abroad: Religious freedom diminished in AfghanistanThe U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) said in a report that “religious freedom conditions in Afghanistan continue to decline dramatically under Taliban rule.”The USCIRF wrote in an Aug. 15 report examining the Taliban’s Law on the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice one year after its enactment: The morality law “impacts all Afghans” but “disproportionately affects religious minorities and women, eradicating their participation in public life and systematically eliminating their right to [freedom of religious belief].”Chinese government banned Catholic priests from evangelizing onlineIn September, the State Administration for Religious Affairs in China banned several forms of online evangelization for religious clergy of all religions, including Catholic priests.The Code of Conduct for Religious Clergy was made up of 18 articles including one that said faith leaders are banned from performing religious rituals through live broadcasts, short videos, or online meetings. U.S. commission said China should be designated as a country of particular concernThe USCIRF reported China tries to exert total control over religion and said the U.S. Department of State should redesignate China as a “country of particular concern” (CPC) regarding religious freedom.USCIRF said in September that China uses surveillance, fines, retribution against family members, imprisonment, enforced disappearance, torture, and other forms of abuse to control the Catholic Church and other religious communities in the nation.In its annual report, USCIRF also recommended Afghanistan, Burma, Cuba, Eritrea, India, Iran, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Vietnam be designated as CPCs.

unitedyam

null / Credit: Joe Belanger/Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Dec 19, 2025 / 06:00 am (CNA).

Here is an overview of some of the religious freedom developments and news in the United States and abroad in 2025:

White House started the Religious Liberty Commission

President Donald Trump established the White House Religious Liberty Commission in May to report on threats to religious freedom in the U.S. and seek to advance legal protections. 

The commission and advisory boards include members of various religions. Catholic members on the commission include Cardinal Timothy Dolan and Bishop Robert Barron. Catholic advisory board members include Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone, Bishop Thomas Paprocki, Bishop Kevin Rhoades, and Father Thomas Ferguson.

Lawmakers condemned persecution of Christians

Rep. Riley Moore, R-West Virginia, and Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, introduced a joint resolution condemning the persecution of Christians in Muslim-majority countries across the world.

The measure called on the Trump administration to leverage trade, security negotiations, and other diplomatic tools to advocate for religious freedom. 

Court blocked law that would require priests to violate the seal of confession

Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson signed a state law in May that would require priests to report child abuse to authorities even if they hear about it during the sacrament of confession. Catholic bishops brought a lawsuit against the measure. A federal judge blocked the controversial law.

Trump announced federal guidelines to protect prayer at public schools

President Donald Trump announced the U.S. Department of Education will issue federal guidelines to protect prayer at public schools during a Sept. 8 Religious Liberty Commission hearing. He said the guidelines will “protect the right to prayer in our public schools and [provide for] its total protection.”

The president said he sought the guidelines after hearing about instances of public school students and staff being censored and facing disciplinary action for engaging in prayer, reading the Bible, and publicly expressing their faith.

Report found most states fail to safeguard religious liberty 

About three-fourths of states scored less than 50% on Napa Legal Institute’s religious freedom index, which measures how well states safeguard religious liberty for faith-based organizations. The October report was part of Napa’s Faith & Freedom Index that showed Alabama scored the highest and Michigan scored the lowest.

Lawmakers urged federal court to allow Ten Commandments display

First Liberty Institute and Heather Gebelin Hacker of Hacker Stephens LLP filed an amicus brief in December on behalf of 46 United States lawmakers urging the federal court to allow the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public schools.

Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana; Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas; and Sens. Ted Cruz and John Cornyn, R-Texas, were among the lawmakers who supported the cause after federal judges blocked Texas and Louisiana laws requiring the display of the commandments.

Supreme Court ruled on religious freedom cases 

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a group of Maryland parents who sued a school district over its refusal to allow families to opt their children out of reading LGBT-themed books. 

In a 6-3 decision on July 27 in Mahmoud v. Taylor, the court ruled the Catholic, Orthodox, and Muslim parents “are likely to succeed on their claim that the board’s policies unconstitutionally burden their religious exercise.” 

In July, the Supreme Court ordered the New York Court of Appeals to revisit Diocese of Albany v. Harris, which challenged a 2017 New York state mandate requiring employers to cover abortions in health insurance plans.

In October, a Native American group working to stop the destruction of a centuries-old religious ritual site in Arizona lost its appeal to the Supreme Court.

Religious liberty abroad: Religious freedom diminished in Afghanistan

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) said in a report that “religious freedom conditions in Afghanistan continue to decline dramatically under Taliban rule.”

The USCIRF wrote in an Aug. 15 report examining the Taliban’s Law on the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice one year after its enactment: The morality law “impacts all Afghans” but “disproportionately affects religious minorities and women, eradicating their participation in public life and systematically eliminating their right to [freedom of religious belief].”

Chinese government banned Catholic priests from evangelizing online

In September, the State Administration for Religious Affairs in China banned several forms of online evangelization for religious clergy of all religions, including Catholic priests.

The Code of Conduct for Religious Clergy was made up of 18 articles including one that said faith leaders are banned from performing religious rituals through live broadcasts, short videos, or online meetings. 

U.S. commission said China should be designated as a country of particular concern

The USCIRF reported China tries to exert total control over religion and said the U.S. Department of State should redesignate China as a “country of particular concern” (CPC) regarding religious freedom.

USCIRF said in September that China uses surveillance, fines, retribution against family members, imprisonment, enforced disappearance, torture, and other forms of abuse to control the Catholic Church and other religious communities in the nation.

In its annual report, USCIRF also recommended Afghanistan, Burma, Cuba, Eritrea, India, Iran, Nicaragua, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Vietnam be designated as CPCs.

Read More
U.S. Supreme Court hears dispute over faith-based pregnancy centers #Catholic null / Credit: Wolfgang Schaller/Shutterstock Washington, D.C., Dec 2, 2025 / 17:04 pm (CNA). The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday on whether a New Jersey faith-based pregnancy center may immediately assert its First Amendment right to challenge a state subpoena demanding donor information — including names, addresses, and places of employment — in federal court, or whether it must first proceed through the state court system.The case, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin, has drawn support from a diverse array of groups, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, members of Congress, the Trump administration, and the ACLU. All argue that First Choice should be able to challenge the subpoena in federal court without first litigating the issue in New Jersey state court.At the center of the dispute is a 2023 subpoena issued by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin seeking extensive donor information from First Choice. In 2022, Platkin created what he called a “reproductive rights strike force” to “protect access to abortion care,” and his office issued a “consumer alert” describing crisis pregnancy centers like First Choice as organizations that may provide “false or misleading information about the safety and legality of abortion.”In its Supreme Court brief, First Choice describes itself as a faith-based nonprofit serving women in New Jersey by providing material support and medical services such as ultrasounds and pregnancy tests under a licensed medical director. The organization does not provide or refer for abortions, a point it plainly and repeatedly states on its website.Platkin’s subpoena commanded First Choice to produce documents and information responsive to 28 separate demands, including the full names, phone numbers, addresses, and current or last known employers of every donor who contributed money by any means other than one specific website. It warned that failure to comply could result in contempt of court and other legal penalties.The attorney general’s office said it needed donor identities to determine whether contributors were “misled” into believing First Choice provided abortions. Platkin argued he needed donor contact information so he could “contact a representative sample and determine what they did or did not know about their donations.”First Choice quickly sued in federal court, arguing the subpoena violated its First Amendment rights by chilling its speech and freedom of association. The federal district court dismissed the case as “unripe,” ruling that the pregnancy center must wait until a New Jersey court seeks to enforce the subpoena. The Supreme Court later agreed to hear the case to determine whether First Choice may pursue its challenge in federal court now.At oral argument, First Choice’s attorney, Erin M. Hawley, told the justices that the court has “long safeguarded the freedom of association by protecting the membership and donor lists of nonprofit organizations.” Yet, she said, “the attorney general of New Jersey issued a sweeping subpoena commanding on pain of contempt that First Choice produce donor names, addresses, and phone numbers so his office could contact and question them. That violates the right of association.”Hawley urged the court to recognize that the subpoena was issued by “a hostile attorney general who has issued a consumer alert, urged New Jerseyans to beware of pregnancy centers, and assembled a strike force against them.”She also noted that the attorney general “has never identified a single complaint against First Choice” and that the threat of contempt and business dissolution is “a death knell for nonprofits like First Choice.”Arguing for New Jersey, Sundeep Iyer, the attorney general’s chief counsel, said First Choice had not demonstrated that the subpoena “objectively chilled” its First Amendment rights. He argued that the subpoena is “non-self-executing,” meaning it imposes no immediate obligation and cannot require compliance unless a court orders enforcement.Justice Neil Gorsuch appeared skeptical, noting that New Jersey law gives attorney general subpoenas the force of law and allows the attorney general to seek contempt orders against those who fail to comply. “I don’t know how to read that other than it’s pretty self-executing to me, counsel,” he said.Justice Elena Kagan questioned whether an “ordinary person” receiving such a subpoena would feel reassured by the claim that it required court approval before being enforced. A donor, she said, is unlikely “to take that as very reassuring.”In an amicus curiae brief, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops urged the court to side with First Choice. “Compelling disclosure of a religious organization’s financial support violates the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion,” the bishops wrote. Forced donor disclosure, they argued, interferes with a religious organization’s mission and burdens the free-exercise rights of donors who give anonymously in accordance with scriptural teachings.The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision in the coming months.
Read More

U.S. Supreme Court hears dispute over faith-based pregnancy centers #Catholic null / Credit: Wolfgang Schaller/Shutterstock Washington, D.C., Dec 2, 2025 / 17:04 pm (CNA). The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday on whether a New Jersey faith-based pregnancy center may immediately assert its First Amendment right to challenge a state subpoena demanding donor information — including names, addresses, and places of employment — in federal court, or whether it must first proceed through the state court system.The case, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin, has drawn support from a diverse array of groups, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, members of Congress, the Trump administration, and the ACLU. All argue that First Choice should be able to challenge the subpoena in federal court without first litigating the issue in New Jersey state court.At the center of the dispute is a 2023 subpoena issued by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin seeking extensive donor information from First Choice. In 2022, Platkin created what he called a “reproductive rights strike force” to “protect access to abortion care,” and his office issued a “consumer alert” describing crisis pregnancy centers like First Choice as organizations that may provide “false or misleading information about the safety and legality of abortion.”In its Supreme Court brief, First Choice describes itself as a faith-based nonprofit serving women in New Jersey by providing material support and medical services such as ultrasounds and pregnancy tests under a licensed medical director. The organization does not provide or refer for abortions, a point it plainly and repeatedly states on its website.Platkin’s subpoena commanded First Choice to produce documents and information responsive to 28 separate demands, including the full names, phone numbers, addresses, and current or last known employers of every donor who contributed money by any means other than one specific website. It warned that failure to comply could result in contempt of court and other legal penalties.The attorney general’s office said it needed donor identities to determine whether contributors were “misled” into believing First Choice provided abortions. Platkin argued he needed donor contact information so he could “contact a representative sample and determine what they did or did not know about their donations.”First Choice quickly sued in federal court, arguing the subpoena violated its First Amendment rights by chilling its speech and freedom of association. The federal district court dismissed the case as “unripe,” ruling that the pregnancy center must wait until a New Jersey court seeks to enforce the subpoena. The Supreme Court later agreed to hear the case to determine whether First Choice may pursue its challenge in federal court now.At oral argument, First Choice’s attorney, Erin M. Hawley, told the justices that the court has “long safeguarded the freedom of association by protecting the membership and donor lists of nonprofit organizations.” Yet, she said, “the attorney general of New Jersey issued a sweeping subpoena commanding on pain of contempt that First Choice produce donor names, addresses, and phone numbers so his office could contact and question them. That violates the right of association.”Hawley urged the court to recognize that the subpoena was issued by “a hostile attorney general who has issued a consumer alert, urged New Jerseyans to beware of pregnancy centers, and assembled a strike force against them.”She also noted that the attorney general “has never identified a single complaint against First Choice” and that the threat of contempt and business dissolution is “a death knell for nonprofits like First Choice.”Arguing for New Jersey, Sundeep Iyer, the attorney general’s chief counsel, said First Choice had not demonstrated that the subpoena “objectively chilled” its First Amendment rights. He argued that the subpoena is “non-self-executing,” meaning it imposes no immediate obligation and cannot require compliance unless a court orders enforcement.Justice Neil Gorsuch appeared skeptical, noting that New Jersey law gives attorney general subpoenas the force of law and allows the attorney general to seek contempt orders against those who fail to comply. “I don’t know how to read that other than it’s pretty self-executing to me, counsel,” he said.Justice Elena Kagan questioned whether an “ordinary person” receiving such a subpoena would feel reassured by the claim that it required court approval before being enforced. A donor, she said, is unlikely “to take that as very reassuring.”In an amicus curiae brief, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops urged the court to side with First Choice. “Compelling disclosure of a religious organization’s financial support violates the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion,” the bishops wrote. Forced donor disclosure, they argued, interferes with a religious organization’s mission and burdens the free-exercise rights of donors who give anonymously in accordance with scriptural teachings.The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision in the coming months.

unitedyam

null / Credit: Wolfgang Schaller/Shutterstock

Washington, D.C., Dec 2, 2025 / 17:04 pm (CNA).

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday on whether a New Jersey faith-based pregnancy center may immediately assert its First Amendment right to challenge a state subpoena demanding donor information — including names, addresses, and places of employment — in federal court, or whether it must first proceed through the state court system.

The case, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin, has drawn support from a diverse array of groups, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, members of Congress, the Trump administration, and the ACLU. All argue that First Choice should be able to challenge the subpoena in federal court without first litigating the issue in New Jersey state court.

At the center of the dispute is a 2023 subpoena issued by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin seeking extensive donor information from First Choice. In 2022, Platkin created what he called a “reproductive rights strike force” to “protect access to abortion care,” and his office issued a “consumer alert” describing crisis pregnancy centers like First Choice as organizations that may provide “false or misleading information about the safety and legality of abortion.”

In its Supreme Court brief, First Choice describes itself as a faith-based nonprofit serving women in New Jersey by providing material support and medical services such as ultrasounds and pregnancy tests under a licensed medical director. The organization does not provide or refer for abortions, a point it plainly and repeatedly states on its website.

Platkin’s subpoena commanded First Choice to produce documents and information responsive to 28 separate demands, including the full names, phone numbers, addresses, and current or last known employers of every donor who contributed money by any means other than one specific website. It warned that failure to comply could result in contempt of court and other legal penalties.

The attorney general’s office said it needed donor identities to determine whether contributors were “misled” into believing First Choice provided abortions. Platkin argued he needed donor contact information so he could “contact a representative sample and determine what they did or did not know about their donations.”

First Choice quickly sued in federal court, arguing the subpoena violated its First Amendment rights by chilling its speech and freedom of association. The federal district court dismissed the case as “unripe,” ruling that the pregnancy center must wait until a New Jersey court seeks to enforce the subpoena. The Supreme Court later agreed to hear the case to determine whether First Choice may pursue its challenge in federal court now.

At oral argument, First Choice’s attorney, Erin M. Hawley, told the justices that the court has “long safeguarded the freedom of association by protecting the membership and donor lists of nonprofit organizations.” Yet, she said, “the attorney general of New Jersey issued a sweeping subpoena commanding on pain of contempt that First Choice produce donor names, addresses, and phone numbers so his office could contact and question them. That violates the right of association.”

Hawley urged the court to recognize that the subpoena was issued by “a hostile attorney general who has issued a consumer alert, urged New Jerseyans to beware of pregnancy centers, and assembled a strike force against them.”

She also noted that the attorney general “has never identified a single complaint against First Choice” and that the threat of contempt and business dissolution is “a death knell for nonprofits like First Choice.”

Arguing for New Jersey, Sundeep Iyer, the attorney general’s chief counsel, said First Choice had not demonstrated that the subpoena “objectively chilled” its First Amendment rights. He argued that the subpoena is “non-self-executing,” meaning it imposes no immediate obligation and cannot require compliance unless a court orders enforcement.

Justice Neil Gorsuch appeared skeptical, noting that New Jersey law gives attorney general subpoenas the force of law and allows the attorney general to seek contempt orders against those who fail to comply. “I don’t know how to read that other than it’s pretty self-executing to me, counsel,” he said.

Justice Elena Kagan questioned whether an “ordinary person” receiving such a subpoena would feel reassured by the claim that it required court approval before being enforced. A donor, she said, is unlikely “to take that as very reassuring.”

In an amicus curiae brief, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops urged the court to side with First Choice. “Compelling disclosure of a religious organization’s financial support violates the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion,” the bishops wrote. Forced donor disclosure, they argued, interferes with a religious organization’s mission and burdens the free-exercise rights of donors who give anonymously in accordance with scriptural teachings.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision in the coming months.

Read More