In this episode, Jenny Beth Martin sits down with Carrie Severino, President of Judicial Crisis Network, to break down a major Supreme Court case involving donor privacy and government overreach. New Jersey is targeting pro-life pregnancy centers with sweeping subpoenas seeking donor names, internal records, and a decade of documents—an effort critics call lawfare aimed at chilling protected First Amendment activity. Carrie explains the constitutional stakes, the key moments from oral arguments, and why this case could set a nationwide precedent for the rights of nonprofits, advocacy groups, and citizens across the political spectrum.
In this episode of The Jenny Beth Show, Jenny Beth Martin is joined by Carrie Severino, President of the Judicial Crisis Network and one of America’s top constitutional legal experts. Together, they unpack a critical Supreme Court case on donor privacy that has major implications for free speech, freedom of association, and the ability of nonprofits to operate without government intimidation.
What’s happening in New Jersey?
The New Jersey Attorney General has launched an aggressive investigation into pro-life pregnancy centers, demanding donor names, employer information, internal documents, and records reaching back ten years. These sweeping subpoenas are part of a broader pattern of lawfare that uses the legal system to burden, intimidate, and ultimately silence organizations the government dislikes.
Carrie explains:
This case is about far more than one state or one issue—it’s about whether the government can weaponize its power to expose private citizens, discourage charitable giving, and suppress disfavored viewpoints.
Guest Links:
Follow Carrie Severino on X: @JCNSeverino
Judicial Crisis Network: judicialnetwork.com
Bench Memos at National Review: nationalreview.com/bench-memos
Host:
Jenny Beth Martin, Honorary Chairman, Tea Party Patriots Action | X: @jennybethm
Narrator (00:14):
Welcome to the Jenny Beth Show.
Jenny Beth Martin (00:18):
Welcome to the Jenny Beth Show, brought to you by Tea Pretty Patriots action. I'm Jenny Beth Martin, and today we're going to level with you about something extraordinary that's happening across America's legal system. Yesterday the Supreme Court heard an important case involving donor privacy. Since the IRS targeted Tea Party groups, we at TEA pretty Patriots action are hypersensitive to issues related to donor privacy. Carrie Severino is going to join us to break it all down. Carrie is the President of Judicial Crisis Network, a bestselling author, a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and a leader in the fight to preserve the integrity of our judiciary. Carrie is one of the top legal and constitutional thinkers in America. Carrie, thank you for joining me today.
Carrie Severino (01:01):
Great to be here. Jenny Beth,
Jenny Beth Martin (01:03):
Yesterday the Supreme Court heard a very important case. Tell me about that.
Carrie Severino (01:07):
Yeah, this case is coming out of New Jersey and it has to do with first choice pregnancy centers that are really being targeted in Lawfare by the New Jersey Attorney General. The State Attorney General there has opened up complaints against crisis pregnancy centers alleging that their donors might not know that in fact they're pro-life organizations and don't provide abortions, but they're using this as cover to try to uncover the donors names, their contact information, their employers, all these things. That is very worrisome because this is exactly the kind of thing that allows someone to target and attack donors of, in this case, a group that's disfavored by the state of New Jersey that is pregnancy care centers like First Choice, and they're coming to the Supreme Court to make sure their First Amendment rights to protect their donor's privacy are vindicated. There's a clear Supreme Court precedent on this saying absolutely they have the right to that privacy, but the state nonetheless is continuing to ask for these things and they're trying to make sure this case is heard in New Jersey courts because they think those courts are going to be complicit in undermining these rights and all First Choice is asking is bring this to a federal court where we could have more confidence that they will vindicate our constitutional rights.
Jenny Beth Martin (02:26):
So talk a little bit about that clear precedent that's from the NAACP in the 1950s, correct?
Carrie Severino (02:32):
Yeah, there's a couple cases in the fifties there was the NAACP versus Alabama case, and this is kind of exactly what is going on here, but with a different topic. In that case, the NAACP obviously is working for civil rights and was very disfavored by the state of Alabama at the time the Alabama was trying to get their donor lists released where had people that were experiencing threats that had employment consequences if they were found out to be allied with the naacp, all sorts of stuff, right? And the Supreme Court held that they do have in order to protect their freedom of association, which is right there in the First Amendment where they have a right to that anonymous association. Similarly, the Supreme Court recently in the Americans for Prosperity case underscored that that was the case. California was trying to force a FP to release its donors and really just across the board to force donor disclosure by nonprofits.
(03:27):
And the Supreme Court reaffirmed that no, that actually is something that these organizations have a right to, there's exacting scrutiny to make sure that you can't force that disclosure unless there's a really clear reason that, okay, there's something fishy going on here. The state needs to look into it. In New Jersey, of course there isn't. In fact, justice Thomas in his questioning yesterday pointed out, have there been any complaints? Is there a single complaint? And they had to keep on going back and saying, well, maybe. Okay, no, finally, there's been no complaints. It's pure speculation on their part that they think that there might be an issue. And really what it boils down to, I think everyone can see is they've been working with Planned Parenthood, and that's in the record to try to attack these pregnancy care centers because Planned Parenthood ironically doesn't want women to have the full range of choices and options when they're faced with a crisis pregnancy.
Jenny Beth Martin (04:21):
What is it exactly that New Jersey is trying to get? How is it different than what happened in California and the NAACP case? Because there's similar but slightly different.
Carrie Severino (04:32):
So for example, at California, there was an across the board rule that just nonprofits had to disclose their donor information in a very detailed way. It's one thing to disclose a few of the donors or some generalized information, but to have to give their contact information to things so that people then later might weaponize that to target those people. And the Supreme Court said, no, you can't do that. That was clearly wrong. In the case of this generalized law, New Jersey is doing one notch more specific, and they're really just focusing on these pregnancy care centers. So it's not every single nonprofit. In some ways it's more disturbing because it's very clear that this is a viewpoint that they disagree with and that's why they're targeting them. So it's not just, Hey, we're concerned about nonprofits generally, no, we don't want pregnancy care centers donors to be confident that they're going to be kept confidential.
(05:22):
And what they did is they subpoenaed not just the donor information, but 10 years worth of documents, tons of information that's going to require these pregnancy care centers to have extensive amounts of lawyers' fees and go back and do a lot of legal work to get this information. Not to mention the fact that they have their donors on record saying, Hey, if I'm worried that my name is going to be then potentially disclosed by the state in an effort to attack these pregnancy centers, I might not be as willing to donate. And that chilling effect of the people who want to associate but are being chilled by the government, threatening them with disclosure. If they do, that's I think where a lot of the harm is coming from. So they both have to fight this case that they shouldn't need to fight, right? Because it's clear constitutionally, they have a right to protect it, but they're being forced to go through all this litigation, pay tons of money to do that. And on the other hand, you've got donors who are going, whoa, wait a minute. This is more than I bargained for. I want to support these people, but I don't know if I'm willing to open myself up to that level of potential harassment that might come. Because we know we've seen, especially since Dobbs, many, many pregnancy centers attacked, firebombed, threatened, et cetera. And so people understandably are concerned if their identity might become doxed and be part of that.
Jenny Beth Martin (06:53):
Right. And I can tell from personal experience when the IRS targeted tea party groups and groups with Tea Party and Patriots in their name like our organization, tea Party Patriots, that what we were able to tell is that people quit donating groups just closed up shop and walked away because they didn't want to be harassed by the IRS. And then that was even, we didn't have to worry quite so much about the doxing, the way that you're talking about that the pregnancy centers have to worry about. But what we were experiencing was that if you donated to a Tea party group, you're six times more likely to be individually audited by the IRS. And that made people just be like, yeah, we're not donating anymore. It harmed our organization. It harmed local groups around the country. It had a chilling effect, it reduced our donations and then we were less effective for a while because we didn't have as much money because people were afraid to be associated with this. So it's very dangerous. And what New Jersey is doing on this is absolutely wrong. You have a right to join together with other people. And in this case, they're not even trying to affect government, they're just trying to provide healthcare to women.
Carrie Severino (08:12):
Absolutely. And this is not the only occasion, as you said, they did it with a tea party. A lot of people will remember from the same-sex marriage fight. Proposition eight in California was a big thing. It was going to be supporting traditional marriage in California, and people were docs that were involved in that, and some people lost their jobs. People got really attacked. Brendan Ike, head of Mozilla got forced out for a donation to support Prop eight. So this is the kind of thing that has happened unfortunately repeatedly. And we can imagine if states are able to do this and just then have their own state courts, which might be run by the same people and have the same agenda, unfortunately try these cases and not go to federal court, that's a real danger. You can imagine them trying to do this to attack gun manufacturers or the oil and gas industry or whatever. All of these organizations, any cause that you can imagine that the left might want to attack, it puts them at risk. And so it's really important to make sure the federal courts remain open. This is part of the reason we have federal courts to make sure that everyone gets a fair shake under the Constitution, especially if you have states that might not be following the Constitution as the way they should be.
Jenny Beth Martin (09:27):
Right. And your First Amendment rights don't stop existing just because a state has more onerous laws, the First Amendment supersedes that.
Carrie Severino (09:37):
Yeah, that's right. And what's encouraging is the arguments yesterday I felt like were very positive for the pregnancy centers. I think it was clear that the justices questioned some of the allegations the state was making when they were saying that this, they have a right to keep on bringing these claims later in federal court, but then they acknowledge, oh no, actually, if they lose in state court, they might be blocked from bringing claims elsewhere. So that's another risk. If they lose the case in the unfavorable realm of the state courts, the federal court might not even be able to revisit the question. The justices were really pushing hard on that, and I think that's a good sign. I think they could see what was really going on here.
Jenny Beth Martin (10:24):
That's really important. And then you said that Justice Thomas asked a question, he normally not talk a lot during cases.
Carrie Severino (10:32):
Yeah, although what's interesting is post COVID during COVID when everything had to be done online, the method of questioning shifted a little bit because they had to take turns like we all do in these Zoom meetings. And I think the other justices liked hearing his voice so much that they've actually voluntarily switched the way they do arguments. So now they basically defer to Justice Thomas to ask the first question they know he doesn't like and thinks is kind of rude and disrespectful. The interrupting people ask questions back and forth like the others do. So they just let him ask the first question. And then at the end of the main section of questioning, the Chief Justice will go back and in seniority order, which starts with Justice Thomas and goes all the way down to Justice Jackson, they each get one more chance to in a, what Justice Thomas might say is a more civilized way, ask any questions. So we actually had quite a few exchanges and I thought it was very effective.
Jenny Beth Martin (11:26):
That's very good. And then you said that the arguments went well. What were the other kind of questions that the other justices were asking?
Carrie Severino (11:35):
Yeah, there were some questions that had to do with whether the issue is ripe, whether they can really bring this case right now, have they been damaged yet? And I think you had New Jersey trying to claim that. No, no, the court hasn't acted yet. Maybe the court won't even ask for us to follow through on this subpoena. Maybe they'll reject it and well, let's wait and let the New Jersey court decide. And they press them on that a lot saying, now, wait a minute, how is this that earlier? And in other cases you've claimed that the subpoenas do come into effect automatically. And wait, look at the text in the subpoena. It says, if you don't follow this, you may be subject to contempt of court. How are you saying that the subpoena is just sort of a notice? It's just kind of an option. It doesn't really mean anything yet.
(12:23):
So they really did press them hard on that. And then they also were trying to press them on the idea. New Jersey was saying there is no chilling effect. And you had several justices being really, I mean the Chief Justice was like, there's no chill and this is very strange. And Justice Gorsuch asked some good questions of that. I mean, there were a lot of real good people bringing in the misleading aspects I think of what New Jersey was trying to say because as you just described, anyone can understand if you think me donating to an organization that is disfavored by my state government is going to result in my name being turned over to them and who knows what being done with it, of course that's going to chill your decision making. I think exactly the idea they want to make these organizations a third rail, they want to put red flags there so that they will not be able to be supported in the way that they are. I think all of those were really good signs to me that the justices know the deal, they can see what's going on. They're not getting the wool pulled over their eyes by some of the arguments New Jersey tried to bring.
Jenny Beth Martin (13:35):
And then what were the arguments that the other side was trying to bring? Was there anything that they said that makes you a little concerned about the outcome?
Carrie Severino (13:43):
I mean, honestly, no. I even heard at times Justice Kagan starting to sound like she was undercutting some of their arguments. So I feel like I saw a clear six votes in favor of first choice pregnancy centers, and maybe you'll even see someone like a Kagan joining in as well. I just think New Jersey has really gotten out way over its skis here in attempting to bully pregnancy centers this way. And I think it's also part of a theme of lawfare that the Supreme Court is frustrated with and they don't want to see the courts abused in this way. Really. We don't want to say abused this way on either side of the aisle, this case it's New Jersey, but as we talked about with the NAACP case, it can happen on all sides and they're obviously not a conservative organization and they were targeted this way.
(14:34):
It's telling that even the A CLU filed an amicus brief in favor of the crisis pregnancy centers, and that's saying a lot the A CLU nowadays isn't as free speech absolutist as it used to be. Oftentimes it does take positions that almost go against the First Amendment but align with their liberal ideology. In this case, they didn't. They said, Hey, this would be definitely a bridge too far. And I thought that was really telling, and I think that's the kind of thing that's going to show the justices this ist just a right left issue. This is a do we want government being weaponized against organizations? And of course the answer to that is no,
Jenny Beth Martin (15:15):
You're exactly right. And what somebody who is following this case who's maybe on the opposite side of the political aisle from you and I, they just should think, would they want Texas or Florida to go after Planned Parenthood or some of the more liberal and leftist organizations and demand all their donors be shown and then they potentially are posted online and doxed. Nobody wants that to happen to their donors. I don't want that to happen to the left either. We have the right to assemble and we have the right to petition our government. And in the case of first choices, they're not even petitioning their government, they're just helping people and doing so the way that their faith leads them to help people. And they should not be punished for that.
Carrie Severino (16:02):
Absolutely. And it was telling also to hear them discuss some of the New Jersey's attempts to say that their website was misleading. I mean, the briefs make it really clear the things on First Choices website. I don't think anyone in their right mind's going to confuse this and think, oh, I'm donating to an organization that provides abortions. They're very clearly a pro-life organization. So the underlying claims that there's a consumer protection issue that people are being misled are so clearly unbound based. There's no reason that anyone would be confused this way. I think they're just trying to find some hook with which to make life difficult for these pregnancy resource centers. And you know what? If they're allowed to do this and run it all out in state court, even if they eventually win in state court, which there's no guarantee of, it shows the process is the punishment. They have had to take this case, get lawyers, get all of this all the way up to the Supreme Court, they're under threat of litigation this whole time. You can't have that type of behavior by a state and then just say, well, let it all play out. Maybe you'll get vindicated in the end. And that's basically what New Jersey is telling them they need to do.
Jenny Beth Martin (17:18):
So one other technical detail that you mentioned. You said that they want records going back for 10 years, is that correct?
Carrie Severino (17:25):
I believe it's 10 years worth of internal records. Yeah, it's an extensive subpoena that they're
Jenny Beth Martin (17:32):
Asking for. The arrest doesn't even ask for records that go back that far. And I'm sure that if they had done something wrong 10 years ago would be outside of the statute of limitations that just seems onerous. And that to me even seems like an abuse of power.
Carrie Severino (17:47):
Yeah. Yeah. I think I'm right on that number, but it's clearly, if you look at these subpoenas, they are trying to intimidate
(17:55):
These pregnancy centers. And you think of it also, if you are someone who wants to open one, say you don't have a pregnancy center near you and you think this is a service I would like to provide to my community, I want to make sure that women who are pregnant and need help have it. You might think twice if you're like, gosh, I don't even know if this is good. I'm going to be immediately hit by all of these things. And so there's so many different ways this could chill, not just the existing pregnancy centers, but other people who want to provide this type of treatment and help within the state of New Jersey. It's so important that the Supreme Court sends a really clear message to, because we know it's not just New Jersey that would like to do this kind of thing, and if they are allowed to prevail here, then I could just see lots of other states following suit. On the other hand, if the Supreme Court makes it really clear this is not okay, then you're going to see states that have to allow, even organizations, they might not politically love to operate freely within their borders. And that's what the Constitution demands.
Jenny Beth Martin (18:58):
Absolutely. So what will the next steps be? When should we expect a decision on this, and how do you think the people who are watching and listening right now can track it as it moves through?
Carrie Severino (19:11):
Yeah, so when the Supreme Court hears cases throughout the term, they start in October and they finish at the end of June. And really they will decide the case this week. I mean, they will have voted and discussed it amongst themselves and voted on the outcome by the end of the week. But it takes a long time to write the opinion. The majority opinion might get written and someone says, well, I want to write a dissent to that. And then they write their dissent and the majority re it says, well, I want to respond to the arguments they made. That back and forth can take months, and especially if for cases that are more controversial, because there are more separate opinions and things, we might not hear this case the results of this case until June. So I would say, but in theory it could happen at any point. Maybe even Justice is sodomy. Jackson are convinced this is a bridge too far, and maybe they can get the opinion out in two or three months, but at this point already being heard in December, I would not expect it before April at the absolute earliest, more likely in June.
Jenny Beth Martin (20:11):
Very good. Well, we'll have to watch it and I hope that it turns out well and I'm glad that the arguments seem to have gone well yesterday. Yeah. Carrie, thank you so much for joining me today. I really appreciate it. And how can people follow you on social media and follow your other work?
Carrie Severino (20:25):
Yeah, I'm on X at JCN Severino and my organization, JCN is@judicialnetwork.com or at Judicial Network on, and I also blog NROs Bench Memos.
Jenny Beth Martin (20:38):
Very good. Thank you so much.
Carrie Severino (20:39):
Thanks.
Jenny Beth Martin (20:41):
If you enjoy today's conversation, go ahead and hit like and subscribe. It really helps us reach more people who care about Freedom and the Constitution. You can find this and other episodes@jennybethshow.com as well as Facebook Rumble, YouTube, Instagram X in your favorite podcast platform.
Narrator (20:59):
The Jenny Beth Show is hosted by Jenny Beth Martin. The Jenny Beth Show is a production of Tea Party Patriots action. For more information, visit tea party patriots.org.