Supreme Court to Examine Subpoena from New Jersey Attorney General Targeting Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers

Supreme Court to Review Investigation of Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers

The Supreme Court will deliberate on whether First-choice Women Resource Center, a faith-based pregnancy center, can contest a federal investigation initiated by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin.

Platkin has issued a subpoena that seeks detailed records, including donor identities linked to nearly 5,000 contributions, along with an internal document spanning the last decade. The center’s initial move was to challenge the subpoena in federal court, claiming it violated their First Amendment rights. In response, Platkin launched his own case in state court, which led to a federal court ruling stating that these federal claims should be addressed in state courts. Subsequently, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a petition with the Supreme Court, arguing that civil rights plaintiffs shouldn’t need to resolve such matters before pursuing federal claims.

“The case raises a fundamental question: if the subject of a state investigation shows a reasonable concern regarding its First Amendment rights, should federal courts even have jurisdiction?” ADF stated on behalf of First Choice.

The petition also alleges that Platkin has openly demonstrated hostility towards the pregnancy center. It mentions that he issued a consumer alert claiming that such centers do not offer abortion services. Additionally, he signed a letter vowing to take legal action against these facilities.

“The Attorney General has acted on that pledge by issuing a rather invasive subpoena to First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc.,” the petition reads. “Yet, Platkin has not identified a single complaint justifying his demands for years of sensitive internal data including donor information.”

Erin Holy, an ADF senior advisor, criticized Platkin’s actions as targeting a pro-life ministry that provides valuable community services like parenting classes and free ultrasounds. She argued, “The Constitution safeguards First Choice and its donors from such unreasonable demands to disclose their identities. They should have the right to defend these rights in federal court.” Holy emphasized that the First Amendment allows First Choice to openly communicate its beliefs and provide compassionate support to those facing unexpected pregnancies. She expressed confidence that the Supreme Court will uphold their rights, contrary to the lower court’s ruling.

Platkin’s office claims the subpoena is part of an investigation into whether First Choice misled donors and clients regarding its stance on abortion, emphasizing that their claims suggest the center falsely presents itself as an alternative to abortion clinics without providing or referring for termination services.

Platkin requested that the Supreme Court clarify procedural matters connected to this case, stating, “The Third Circuit has recognized that the petitioner has not successfully established a case for their constitutional rights relative to the subpoena.” He remains steadfast in his belief that the subpoena is lawful and anticipates a favorable outcome when the Supreme Court reviews this issue.