On Tuesday, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas compelled representatives from New Jersey’s Attorney General’s Office to acknowledge that the state has no basis for investigating pro-life pregnancy centers.
Sandeep Iyer, who serves as chief counsel for the state attorney general, admitted that while complaints about other centers exist, he had not received any complaints regarding First Choice Women’s Resource Center prior to issuing subpoenas to its donors.
Thomas posed the question, “So there was no reason to think they were cheating their contributors?” to which Iyer responded that the center’s public website is, perhaps, misleading.
In the case of First Choice Women’s Resource Center v. Platkin, the justices are deliberating whether state courts should enforce New Jersey subpoenas before the pregnancy center can challenge those subpoenas in federal court.
In November 2023, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin issued a subpoena requiring the pregnancy center to provide several years’ worth of internal documents concerning roughly 5,000 donations, as noted in the Center’s petition.
The center contends that this subpoena infringes on First Amendment rights and hinders the right to associate freely. Meanwhile, New Jersey asserts that the subpoenas are not self-executing and cannot be challenged in federal court at this time.
Many of the justices seemed to resonate with the pregnancy center’s concerns. Justice Elena Kagan remarked that it might not be very reassuring for a typical person who supports such organizations to be handed a subpoena and told, “But don’t worry, it has a court ruling.”
Describing the situation as part of an ongoing “harassment campaign” against pregnancy centers, pro-life organizations underscore that the subpoena wasn’t an isolated event. Justice Amy Coney Barrett emphasized that the attorney general’s actions indicate a broader declaration of war against these centers.
After Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, a ‘Consumer Alert’ was issued alongside a ‘strike force’ aimed at increasing abortion access. The pregnancy center accused the agency of providing misleading information to consumers.
Iyer responded to the accusations by stating, “Those on the other side won’t let factual allegations interfere with their narrative of hostility.”
Despite the attorney general’s public stance against pregnancy centers, First Choice is determined to defend its right to operate without government obstruction or harassment.
In 2024, pro-life pregnancy centers provided services valued at approximately $452 million to about one million new clients. Since the leak of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in 2022, nearly 100 pro-life centers and organizations have reported facing various attacks.
The lawsuit involving First Choice isn’t the only challenge pregnancy centers have encountered. In a recent case, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals permitted a lawsuit by New York Attorney General Letitia James aimed at making pregnancy centers inform women about alternatives for reversing abortion pills. Furthermore, Colorado attempted to prohibit the reversal of abortion pills, but a federal judge ruled against that measure.
In addition to issues related to freedom of association, First Choice highlights concerns about donor privacy that have drawn attention even from organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU has voiced its support for the center’s claims, stating, “Using subpoena power or other means to censor, restrict, or chill opposition speech violates the First Amendment.” They noted that such concerns are central to the First Choice case, making it sufficient for a legitimate First Amendment claim.
