The U.S. Supreme Court has taken on huge cases recently. This one might take the cake.
Because the Supreme Court has just made a wild First Amendment decision.
Supreme Court to Tackle New Jersey’s Assault on Pro-Life Donors’ Free Speech
The U.S. Supreme Court has taken up a critical case that pits New Jersey’s Attorney General Matthew Platkin against First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a pro-life pregnancy center. At the heart of the dispute is Platkin’s aggressive demand for the center to reveal the identities of nearly 5,000 donors, a move that threatens the First Amendment rights of those supporting the organization’s mission to provide life-affirming care. The case, set to be heard this fall, raises urgent questions about the government’s power to target private citizens for their beliefs and associations.
In November 2023, Platkin issued a sweeping subpoena ordering First Choice to hand over years of internal documents, including donor names, without citing any specific complaints against the center. According to the center’s lawsuit, this demand lacks any clear justification, appearing instead as a politically motivated attack on an organization that champions alternatives to abortion. The subpoena’s breadth and lack of specificity suggest an intent to intimidate rather than investigate, casting a chilling shadow over the right to support causes privately.
“State law authorizes attorneys general to issue investigative demands based on a subjective suspicion of wrongdoing or a subjective determination that the demand is in the public interest,” First Choice wrote in their petition. This vague standard, they argue, hands officials like Platkin unchecked power to probe organizations they disagree with ideologically. The petition warns that such authority is increasingly wielded to “target political opponents,” eroding the freedoms of speech and association that the First Amendment protects.
Platkin’s hostility toward pro-life pregnancy centers is no secret. “He issued a consumer alert—drafted with the help of Planned Parenthood—complaining that such centers do not provide or refer for abortion,” the petition notes. This collaboration with a leading abortion provider raises concerns about bias, suggesting the subpoena is less about public interest and more about silencing a group that offers women free ultrasounds, parenting classes, and baby supplies.
The First Amendment safeguards the right to associate freely and support causes without fear of government retaliation. Forcing First Choice to disclose its donors’ identities risks exposing them to harassment or worse, a tactic historically used to suppress unpopular viewpoints. The Supreme Court’s 1958 decision in NAACP v. Alabama recognized this danger, protecting the NAACP’s membership lists from state demands to prevent intimidation of civil rights supporters. First Choice’s case echoes this precedent, as donors’ privacy is essential to their ability to back the pro-life mission without fear.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled that First Choice’s challenge was premature, stating the center could not sue until a state court enforced Platkin’s subpoena. Platkin leaned on this procedural hurdle, arguing in a brief that the subpoena “is not self-executing; it can only be enforced by a New Jersey state court, and Petitioner faces no penalties for noncompliance with the subpoena unless and until a judicial order mandating the production of documents issues.” This technicality, however, sidesteps the threat to constitutional protections posed by such demands.
Platkin’s public statements further fuel concerns about his motives. “First Choice has for years refused to answer questions about their operations in New Jersey and the potential misrepresentations they have been making, including about reproductive healthcare,” he told reporters.
Yet, without evidence of wrongdoing, his accusations seem to hinge on the center’s pro-life stance rather than any concrete violation. This approach suggests an attempt to punish First Choice for its beliefs rather than uphold any neutral legal standard. Conservatives in America believe there’s hardly any same standard upheld for Leftist organizations. There’s certainly precedent
The Attorney General’s confidence in the subpoena’s legality is unwavering. “The question before the U.S. Supreme Court focuses on whether First Choice sued prematurely, not whether our subpoena was valid,” Platkin said. “I am optimistic that we will prevail when the Supreme Court considers that question this fall. First Choice is looking for a special exception from the usual procedural rules as it tries to avoid complying with an entirely lawful state subpoena, something the U.S. Constitution does not permit it to do.” His framing dismisses the constitutional stakes, ignoring the chilling effect on free speech and association.
Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Erin Hawley, representing First Choice, sees the case as a clear violation of constitutional protections. “Platkin 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,” she said in a statement. Hawley argues that the First Amendment shields First Choice and its supporters from such unjustified intrusions, emphasizing the right to vindicate these protections in federal court.
“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,” Hawley said. As the Supreme Court prepares to hear the case, the outcome will likely shape the extent to which states can wield investigative powers to target organizations and their supporters based on ideological differences. The fight is not just for First Choice but for the fundamental right of every American to support a cause without fear of government overreach.
The Conservative Column will bring you any major updates to this ongoing legal case.
