The Supreme Court Monday took up the case of a pro-life pregnancy center that claimed religious and political discrimination after New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin, a Democrat, issued a subpoena demanding documents on the suspicion that the center had violated a consumer fraud law.
Lower courts had ruled that the pregnancy center, First Choice Women’s Resource with its headquarters in Morristown, must file its case in New Jersey courts, rather than federal court, because Platkin’s subpoena was “non-executing,” i.e., could only be enforced by a New Jersey court order. The Supreme Court will consider whether entities like First Choice must seek relief in state courts before they can petition federal courts.
“New Jersey’s attorney general is targeting First Choice—a ministry that provides parenting classes, free ultrasounds, baby clothes, and more to its community—simply because of its pro-life views,” Erin Hawley, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the pregnancy center, said in a statement after the court took up the case Monday.
“The Constitution protects First Choice and its donors from unjustified demands to disclose their identities, and First Choice is entitled to vindicate those rights in federal court.”
First Choice brought nine federal claims against Platkin, claiming that a Nov. 15, 2023, subpoena violated the First Amendment.
The subpoena cited the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the Charitable Registration and Investigation Act, and the attorney general’s investigative authority regarding professions and occupations, according to the initial complaint. The pregnancy center noted, however, that the subpoena “does not reflect the existence of a complaint, nor does it reflect any factual basis for suspecting a violation of the cited New Jersey laws.”
The subpoena demanded “a copy of every solicitation and advertisement,” “all documents physically or electronically provided to clients and/or donors, including intake forms, questionnaires, and pamphlets,” “documents sufficient to identify donations made to First Choice,” and more.
The subpoena focused on claims regarding the abortion pill reversal procedure. While pro-life pregnancy centers have launched hotlines to enable pregnant women who have taken abortion pills to order a reversal pill, pro-abortion activists argue that the reversal pills are unsafe.
First Choice claimed that complying with the subpoena would “bury” the pregnancy center “in an inordinate amount of work,” while potential disclosure of donors and staff would chill support for the group “out of fear of retaliation and public exposure.”
Americans for Prosperity, a conservative nonprofit, filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to take up the case. AFP and the Thomas More Law Center filed a lawsuit against then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris to block a required disclosure of donors. The Supreme Court upheld AFP’s right to donor confidentiality, ruling in AFP v. Bonta (2021)—named for Harris’ successor Rob Bonta—that California’s requirement violated the First Amendment.
According to AFP, that Supreme Court precedent requires federal courts to take up First Choice’s case.
Platkin argued that the Supreme Court should not take up the case, arguing that the pregnancy center’s “constitutional challenge to a non-self-executing subpoena was not ripe for federal review.”
Platkin defended his subpoena, claiming that it came from concern “that certain nonprofit entities in New Jersey … may be misleading donors and potential clients regarding the health services they provide.”
Platkin noted that the subpoena is “not self-executing” and therefore “can only be enforced by a New Jersey state court.”
“Although the state issued its subpoena in 2023, the state court has not required production of any documents—and has instead declined the state’s requests for such an order,” his brief notes. “Nonetheless, [First Choice] has repeatedly waged a collateral attack on the subpoena in federal court.”