Supreme Court Supports Religious Pregnancy Centers
On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of religious pregnancy centers, allowing courts to address subpoenas targeting donors, even if those subpoenas aren’t enforced.
Matthew Platkin, the former Democratic Attorney General of New Jersey, had issued a subpoena to First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc., a nonprofit providing support to pregnant women since 1985.
In 2022, Platkin’s Reproductive Rights Strike Force issued a consumer warning, alleging that First Choice, alongside other organizations, was “attempting to prevent women from receiving reproductive health care by providing false or misleading abortion information.”
First Choice advocates the belief that life begins at conception and does not offer abortions or refer individuals to other organizations for such services.
Platkin’s subpoena demanded 28 documents with personal information about donors who contributed “through means other than specific web pages,” warning that failure to comply could lead to contempt of court penalties.
Amy Huber, Executive Director of First Choice, stated that Platkin’s demands were coercive, arguing that his actions aimed to undermine the vital work the organization does for many New Jersey women and children.
First Choice argued that the subpoenas for donor information were a violation of First Amendment rights and might deter potential donors from supporting their cause.
The court sided with First Choice, asserting that requests for individual donor information infringed on the rights of organizations protected by the First Amendment, regardless of whether the information was intended for government officials or the general public.
Erin Hawley, an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented First Choice, called the ruling a significant victory. She emphasized that the decision upheld precedent that protects First Amendment rights.
“The Attorney General’s actions targeted First Choice simply due to its pro-life stance, which is clearly unconstitutional,” Hawley remarked, expressing readiness to continue legal battles if needed.
The court also acknowledged a broader principle, allowing for “common sense inferences” about the potential harms of subpoenas that affect First Amendment activities, even if not enforced. The court noted that such unenforceable subpoenas could still prompt supporters to distance themselves from the organization.
New Jersey’s current Attorney General, Jennifer Davenport, commented that the decision enables First Choice to contest the subpoena but does not invalidate it. She reaffirmed the state’s commitment to ensuring that nonprofit organizations do not engage in deceptive practices and stated that they would continue to uphold fraud laws impartially.
