The Supreme Court decided on Monday to review a subpoena that seeks donor records from the network of New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin’s Abortion Prevention Clinics.
In a recent order, the Court stated it will examine whether the First Choice Women’s Resource Center can assert a First Amendment claim in federal courts.
A lower court previously determined that the group’s free speech claims weren’t appropriate for federal courts, suggesting they could be addressed in state courts instead. However, this judge cautioned that opting for state court might create a “Catch-22” situation, hindering federal judges from assessing the constitutionality of the subpoena.
“For a century and a half, Congress has given targets in state misconduct cases a forum at the federal level for constitutional claims,” the group noted in its petition. “Nonetheless, the third and fifth circuits have removed that forum concerning state investigation requests.”
Platkin’s office has been looking into whether the clinic has violated New Jersey’s consumer fraud laws and if they misrepresented the health services offered to donors and potential clients.
In response, Platkin accused the clinic of showing “hospitality” towards anti-abortion views, labeling the subpoena as “invasive” and likely discouraging donor support.
The state court has enforced the subpoena, but it hasn’t yet resolved the group’s First Amendment request. The documents in question have not been released as Platkin agreed to pause the lawsuit until the Supreme Court decides on the viability of filing a free speech claim in federal court.
This case is set to be discussed during the upcoming annual session of the High Court, which kicks off in October.
First Choice is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal organization that often wins Supreme Court cases related to religion, LGBTQ rights, and abortion issues.
Before the case reached the Supreme Court, there were warnings about the contentious nature of the legal claim involved. The group emphasized that this challenge could serve as an unusual mechanism for linking relevant issues for judicial consideration.
“This case could be a unique opportunity for the court to tackle significant issues that might otherwise go unaddressed,” the group stated.
Platkin’s office urged the Supreme Court to establish stricter guidelines, arguing that the situation does not meet the high standards courts usually apply when deciding on cases.
“The Third Circuit has concluded that, particularly considering the petitioner’s claims and substantial evidence, along with its procedural stance, it has not adequately demonstrated violations of its constitutional rights due to the subpoena,” Platkin’s office noted in a court filing.
The Court’s initial choice to engage with this matter has garnered support from the Prosperity Foundation, a political group established by former Vice President Pence, along with various anti-abortion and religious organizations, as well as advocates for American freedoms.
