Attorney General Bonta Urges U.S. Supreme Court to Protect States’ Use of Investigative Subpoenas

OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced joining a coalition of 20 attorneys general in urging the U.S. Supreme Court to protect states’ longstanding authority to request information from individuals and corporations as part of state investigations into potential violations of state laws, including, for example, consumer protection laws. The attorneys general ask the Supreme Court to recognize the importance of state investigative subpoenas and safeguard the ability of state courts to handle disputes arising from those subpoenas. The coalition filed an amicus brief supporting New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc., v. Platkin, which is scheduled for oral argument before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, December 2, 2025.

“Investigative subpoenas are one of the best tools that attorneys general have to make sure that businesses and people are following the law — not hurting Californians,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Among other things, my office has used them to prosecute healthcare companies that deceived consumers, get relief for students defrauded by for-profit universities, and to make sure employers pay their employees every dollar they earned. We urge the U.S. Supreme Court not to allow targets to evade investigation by improperly turning to the federal courts with half-baked allegations that their First Amendment rights have been chilled.” 

First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc., v. Platkin concerns whether First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a faith-based pregnancy center, could sue a state in federal court to block a state investigative subpoena looking into whether the organization had violated state consumer protection and charitable oversight laws. First Choice argued that its First Amendment rights of free speech and association were harmed solely by receiving the investigative subpoena from New Jersey’s Attorney General, and that it was entitled to sue New Jersey in federal court to block the investigation even before a state court ruled on its objections to the subpoena or enforced the subpoena. Both the federal district court and federal court of appeals sided with New Jersey, dismissing the federal lawsuit until the state court ruled on the objections to the subpoena or ordered enforcement.

The attorneys general argue that the case threatens to undermine the investigations of state attorneys general on a range of possible violations of state laws on everything from antitrust to environmental and consumer protection issues. Attorneys general in Republican — and Democratic — leaning states alike frequently use investigative subpoenas to perform their jobs as chief law enforcement officers for their states. State courts have long been the typical venue for a recipient to challenge an investigative subpoena and are well-equipped to handle constitutional questions such as First Amendment issues.

Joining Attorney General Bonta in filing the brief are the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

A copy of the amicus brief can be found here.