An exchange between Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and an attorney from a Democratic attorney general's office has gone viral on social media.The case involves a pro-life pregnancy center objecting to a subpoena from the New Jersey state attorney general's office to provide a list of its donors. Thomas cornered a representative for the AG's office in oral arguments about the justification for the legal targeting of the faith-based group.Even Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal justice on the court, appeared to be sympathetic to the pro-life center's plight.Thomas zeroed in on the point that there had been no complaints from donors about the center, while Sundeep Iyer, the chief counsel to the New Jersey attorney general's office, was defending the investigation into whether donors had been deceived."Did you have complaints that formed the basis of your concern about the fundraising activities here?" Thomas asked."We certainly had complaints about crisis pregnancy centers," Iyer responded."No, about this crisis pregnancy center," Thomas interrupted."So, I think we've been clear from the outset that we haven't had complaints about this specific —" Iver replied."So you had no basis to think that they were deceiving any of their contributors?" Thomas interrupted again."I don't think that's correct, Your Honor," Iyer stammered."I think we had carefully canvassed all of the public information that is provided on the website of First Choice in making a determination that we wanted to initiate an investigation," he continued."But you had no factual basis," Thomas asserted."I don't think that's true, Your Honor. I think, for example, you could take a look at a comparison between the donation page of First Choice that we have carved out, from the very beginning —" Iyer said."But you had no complaints?" Thomas asked."We had no complaints, but the state governments [and] federal government initiate investigations all the time in the absence of complaints, where they have a reason to suspect that there could be potential issues of legal compliance," Iyer responded."Well, that just seems to be a burdensome way to find out whether someone has a confusing website," Thomas asserted.Iyer went on to argue that the existence of complaints would be material to the merits of the case, but not to whether the state officials had standing for the subpoena.Audio of the exchange was posted to social media, where it went viral.The Supreme Court is considering whether the state court must enforce the subpoena against First Choice Women’s Resource Centers before the faith-based pregnancy center can challenge it in federal court.RELATED: Leftist war on pro-life pregnancy centers faces Supreme Court reckoning The center argues that the subpoena violates its First Amendment right to free speech as well as the right to free association.Even Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal justice on the court, appeared to be sympathetic to the pro-life center's plight."An ordinary person, one of the funders of this organization or any similar organization, presented with this subpoena and then told, 'But don't worry, it has to be stamped by a court,' is not going to take that as very reassuring," she said during the case.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!