Federal court strikes down subpoena targeting pro-life group

According to a press release from National Right to Life, Idaho's federal district court struck down a subpoena that had been served against Right to Life of Idaho.

Key Takeaways:

• Amid a lawsuit to block Idaho's law prohibiting the trafficking of minors for abortions, pro-abortion groups attempted to subpoena Right to Life Idaho for communications records.

• The federal court ruled that the pro-abortion groups must find another path to gather the information they are seeking — one that doesn't violate RTLI's freedom of speech.

The Backstory:

In 2023, pro-abortion groups that work to help minors obtain abortions, including the Northwest Abortion Access Fund and the Indigenous Idaho Alliance, filed a lawsuit to block Idaho's law banning adults from taking minors across state lines for abortions. The pro-abortion groups claimed that the law violates their First Amendment rights to speak and provide legal assistance to minors, as well as the right to travel.

The Ninth Circuit ruled that the state can prohibit adults from transporting minors for an abortion without parental consent, but said the provision of the bill regarding "recruitment" of minors to have an abortion likely violates free speech.

Following this ruling, the abortion groups were still able to give information, support, and financial resources to minors seeking abortions. In September 2025, however, the pro-abortion groups subpoenaed Right to Life Idaho (RTLI), which was not a party to the case, in order to gain access to its records, including any communications the pro-life organization might have had with legislators regarding the abortion trafficking law.

RTLI filed a motion to have that subpoena quashed.

The Details:

On Tuesday, the federal district court ruled in favor of the pro-life organization.

According to National Right to Life, the court found that the "First Amendment shields political advocacy organizations like RTLI from being forced to release their communications to legislators when doing so could chill the organization's speech."

RTLI successfully argued that it relies on the ability to communicate freely with legislators and that requiring it to release its communications whenever related litigation is filed would prohibit it from effectively engaging in such communications. It would act to dissuade legislators from communicating with RTLI.

The court wrote:

Given the significance of the First Amendment rights, the Court finds, on balance, that Plaintiffs’ interests in obtaining the information through discovery before pursuing other less intrusive means, such as a public records request, are now outweighed by the First Amendment rights asserted. Plaintiffs’ reasons for not first attempting to obtain the information through other less intrusive means – inefficiency, cost, scope, and timing – do not justify infringement on the First Amendment rights asserted at this time. (Dkt. 87, 108, 130).

For this reason, the Court will grant the Second Motion to Quash without prejudice. The Court may entertain a motion to compel or other appropriate motion if Plaintiffs are unable to obtain the requested information using other means. Accordingly, the Court will extend the deadline for completion of discovery relevant to this information to June 1, 2026.

The Bottom Line:

The subpoena will not be enforced, and the pro-abortion groups must gather the information they are looking for in a manner that does not violate RTLI's free speech rights.