The Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously sided with New Jersey pro-life pregnancy centers facing an invasive investigation from the state’s Democrat attorney general.
The case, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, surrounds New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin issuing a subpoena in 2023 to First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, asking for ten years of internal documents and donor lists. The state argued its subpoena is part of an investigation to determine if the organization violated the state’s consumer fraud laws by misleading donors and potential clients about its stance on abortion. First Choice contended the investigation has violated their First Amendment right to association and could have a chilling effect by deterring potential donors.
First Choice tried to challenge the subpoena in federal court, arguing that the state had violated the First Amendment, Breitbart News previously detailed. Platkin responded by filing his own lawsuit in state court, an action which led lower federal courts to rule that First Choice must pursue federal claims in state court first.
In response, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a petition on behalf of First Choice asking the Supreme Court to hold that civil rights plaintiffs do not need to litigate challenges to state investigations in state court before they can bring federal claims.
The Supreme Court agreed to take up the case last June. The question before the high court was largely procedural, although the case has sweeping consequences for pregnancy centers in a post-Roe v. Wade landscape where pro-life organizations face more attacks, both violent and political. The case could affect thousands of pregnancy centers across the U.S. — as well as other kinds of non-profit organizations — with regard to how they may challenge state probes and whether the identities of donors are able to remain confidential.
Justice Neil Gorsuch penned the 9-0 opinion for the majority, ruling that New Jersey injured First Choice’s First Amendment associational rights and that the organization has the right to challenge the subpoena in federal court.
“An injury in fact does not arise only when a defendant causes a tangible harm to a plaintiff, like a physical injury or monetary loss. It can also arise when a defendant burdens a plaintiff ’s constitutional rights. And our cases have long recognized that demands for a charity’s private member or donor information have just that effect,” he wrote.
“They discourage people from associating with groups engaged in protected First Amendment advocacy. They also encourage groups and individuals to cease or modify protected First Amendment advocacy the government disfavors,” he continued. “All this occurs not just when a demand is enforced, but when it is made and for as long as it remains outstanding. As we have put it, a demand for private donor information inevitably deters the exercise of First Amendment rights.”
“Since the 1950s, this Court has confronted one official demand after another like the Attorney General’s. Over and again, we have held those demands burden the exercise of First Amendment rights. Disputing none of these precedents but seeking ways around them, the Attorney General has offered a variety of arguments. Some are old, some are new, but none succeeds,” he wrote.
Justices ultimately reversed an appeals court ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with their opinion.
First Choice Executive Director Aimee Huber praised the court’s ruling in a statement.
“For more than two years, Attorney General Platkin targeted First Choice with aggressive demands for sensitive documents, including our donors’ identities,” Huber said. “He has gone to great lengths to frustrate the important work we do — work that has made a tangible, life-saving difference for tens of thousands of New Jersey women and their children. As the Supreme Court recognized, the government can’t evade federal court review when it harasses those who support pro-life ministries just because it disagrees with their message and their mission.”
ADF’s Erin Hawley, the wife of Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO), who argued this case before the Supreme Court in December, called the ruling a “resounding victory.”
“In this resounding victory, the Supreme Court held to its long-standing precedent of recognizing that the Constitution protects First Choice and its donors from demands by a hostile state official to disclose donor identities and contact information,” said ADF Of Counsel Erin Hawley, who argued before the Supreme Court in December.
“New Jersey’s attorney general targeted First Choice — a ministry that provides parenting classes, free ultrasounds, baby clothes, and more to its community — simply because of its pro-life views. That is blatantly unconstitutional. Should the Attorney General continue these efforts on remand, we look forward to presenting First Choice’s case in federal court,” she said.
The case is First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, No. 24-781 in the Supreme Court of the United States.
Katherine Hamilton is a political reporter for Breitbart News. You can follow her on X @thekat_hamilton.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.