(Live Action News) Two pro-life groups have objected to demands from pro-abortion activists to disclose internal communications as part of a lawsuit regarding Idaho's abortion trafficking laws.
The National Right to Life Committee and Right to Life of Idaho have formally objected to subpoenas issued by abortion groups to hand over internal communications and documents related to pro-life Idaho laws, specifically the state's abortion trafficking law.
In Matsumoto et al. v. Labrador, the Northwest Abortion Access Fund, Indigenous Idaho Alliance, and attorney Lourdes Matsumoto sued the State of Idaho, alleging that the law, which is aimed at protecting minors, violates the First Amendment and the right to travel.
The pro-life groups say the subpoenas violate their First Amendment rights and that the requested documents lack relevance in the lawsuit against the abortion trafficking law. They also say the subpoenas create an undue burden.
[Click here to subscribe to Pregnancy Help News!]
The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) and Right to Life of Idaho (RLI) announced a formal objection to subpoenas issued by Northwest Abortion Access Fund, Indigenous Idaho Alliance, and attorney Lourdes Matsumoto in the case of Matsumoto et al. v. Labrador. The pro-abortion plaintiffs argue that an Idaho law restricting out-of-state travel for abortion violates the First Amendment and the right to travel.
"The subpoenas, served on September 12, 2025, demanded wide-ranging internal communications and advocacy documents related to Idaho House Bills 242 and 98—legislation addressing Abortion Trafficking that passed in Idaho," the press release stated. "Represented by The Bopp Law Firm, NRLC and RLI filed objections on October 2, 2025, citing First Amendment protections, lack of relevance, and undue burden."
The press release also argued that the subpoenaed documents lack relevance in the case. "NRLC’s and RLI’s internal documents have no bearing on the legal claims in Matsumoto, which challenge Idaho’s abortion trafficking law on due process and travel rights grounds. A private entity’s understanding and interpretation of a law does not play a part in the judicial construction of a law," it said.
It added, "Forcing disclosure of advocacy communications violates the constitutional rights of association and expression, creating a deterrent effect on participation in pro-life organizations," and "The subpoenas improperly demand 'all documents' relating to broad categories of legislation, with no reasonable limits, including an arbitrary period dating back to 2021 — well before the introduction of the bills at issue."
The Idaho law in question specifically protects minors from being transported across state lines for an abortion. And there is a proven need for such a law. An Idaho minor was taken across state lines by her 18-year-old boyfriend and his mother for an abortion without her parents' knowledge. Her mother later called police to report that her daughter had been raped and taken to Oregon for an abortion without her permission.
James Bopp, Jr., general counsel for NRLC, said, "The law is clear: advocacy organizations cannot be compelled to turn over their strategy sessions and internal communications simply because their opponents wish to gain an advantage in court. The subpoenas go far beyond what is permissible and strike at the heart of constitutionally protected activity."
Tweet This: Advocacy orgs cannot be compelled to turn over strategy sessions & internal comms simply because opponents want an advantage in court.
Editor's note: This article was published by Live Action News and is reprinted with permission.
