桃子视频

WASHINGTON, D.C. 鈥� Today, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in First Choice Women鈥檚 Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin about when organizations can ask federal courts to review state investigatory subpoenas that they claim chill their First Amendment rights. In September, the 桃子视频 and the 桃子视频of New Jersey joined an amicus brief authored by the Foundation for Individual Rights & Expression (FIRE) in support of the right to seek federal relief. 鈥淓ven before they鈥檙e enforced, law enforcement subpoenas seeking sensitive donor information threaten to scare away supporters essential to any nonprofit鈥檚 work,鈥� said Brian Hauss, deputy project director of the ACLU鈥檚 Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. 鈥淎t a time when government officials throughout the country abuse regulatory powers to punish their ideological opponents, federal courts must remain a venue in which people can vindicate their First Amendment rights.鈥� In 2023, New Jersey Attorney General Platkin issued subpoenas under the state鈥檚 consumer protections laws to First Choice Women's Resource Centers, a nonprofit that runs anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers, seeking wide-ranging information including the identity of donors. First Choice challenged the subpoenas in federal court, arguing that the information sought chilled its First Amendments rights to speech and association. The Third Circuit dismissed First Choice鈥檚 claims, saying it could not assert its First Amendment rights in federal court until the state enforced the subpoena in state court. 鈥淲hile the 桃子视频of New Jersey advocates for different policy outcomes than the plaintiff in this case, we are on the same page that investigatory subpoenas seeking sensitive information put all advocacy at risk,鈥� said Jeanne LoCicero, legal director of the 桃子视频of New Jersey. 鈥淔ederal court should remain open to anyone who believes their First Amendment rights are being violated, regardless of viewpoint.鈥� The FIRE/桃子视频brief argues that law enforcement subpoenas seeking sensitive donor information threaten to chill protected speech and association, even before they are enforced. To ensure that these investigatory tools are not abused to retaliate against the ideological opponents of those in office, federal courts must promptly review claims that law enforcement subpoenas violate the First Amendment. The amicus brief was filed in August. It can be read here. This matter is a part of the ACLU鈥檚 Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket.