New Jersey's War on Pro-Life Groups

Back to the Worldview Wire

Would you still donate if the government could unmask you for supporting pro-life work?

Imagine donating to a charity that helps pregnant women in need, only to face the chilling prospect that a state investigation could unmask your personal details, all for backing a pro-life mission. That's the reality facing supporters of New Jersey's First Choice Women's Resource Centers, where a sweeping subpoena from Attorney General Matthew Platkin has already caused hesitation for potential volunteers and donors, as well as placed an overwhelming burden on existing staff. In recent oral arguments, Supreme Court justices across the ideological spectrum signaled strong skepticism toward New Jersey's position, highlighting concerns over burdensome investigations that many see as targeted weaponization against religious pregnancy centers in the wake of Dobbs.

The Subpoena That Changed Everything

The Supreme Court heard arguments on December 2 in First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin, a two-year legal battle centered on First Amendment rights between New Jersey and a group of pro-life pregnancy centers in the state.

In November 2023, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin issued a subpoena to First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a nonprofit organization consisting of five pregnancy resource centers in New Jersey, demanding that the organization disclose donor information, including personal information like names and phone numbers. The state claimed its intent was to investigate whether the organization engages in deceptive practices by not disclosing what “reproductive health” services, such as abortions, they do or do not offer women. No such complaint has ever come down from a client.

First Choice sued the state in federal court, claiming the subpoena creates a “chilling effect” for both the organization and its donors First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, association, and religious expression. At the time, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that First Choice would have to contest the subpoena in state court prior to any federal litigation, stating the case was “unripe,” meaning that simply issuing the subpoena did not cause immediate injury to the organization. First Choice had to fully respond to the initial subpoena, but that response could include objecting to the demands. First Choice then petitioned the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari in June. The arguments were heard on December 2.

Justices Across the Bench Push Back

In the oral arguments, Sundeep Iyer, of the New Jersey attorney general’s office, argued that issuing the subpoena offered no chilling effect of First Choice’s First Amendment rights, as that action did not require the organization to produce any documents.

Initial reactions from several Supreme Court justices indicate disagreement with Iyer’s claim. 

Justice Neil Gorsuch stated the subpoena does in fact seem self-executing. Justice Samuel Alito agreed, calling the claim that the subpoena is not self-executing a litigation tactic rather than a fact. 

Erin Hawley of Alliance Defending Freedom, the attorney representing First Choice, argued the court should look at the ability of the issuance of the subpoena to cause a chilling effect on a reasonable donor. Chief Justice John Roberts agreed that the issuance could have this effect on such a person. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Elena Kagan seemed to agree. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who appeared most sympathetic to New Jersey’s arguments, even argued that the idea that First Choice must exhaust all state litigation options first created an undue burden for the organization.

A ruling on the arguments is expected by the end of the term, likely June 2026.

Worldview Roundup

This New Jersey case is one example that highlights challenges faced by pro-life organizations in the post-Dobbs era. It emerges amid increased scrutiny of crisis pregnancy centers in Democratic-led states since the 2022 decision, even as similar centers receive public funding in Republican-led ones.

In an interview, with Allie Beth Stuckey, Aimee Huber, Executive Director with First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, stated some of the demonstrable effects the subpoena has already had on the organization. According to Huber, volunteers are reluctant to join the centers until the litigation dies down, the burden of the process of dealing with the subpoena itself is “overwhelming,” and potential donors are now skeptical of how the litigation could affect them.

Regardless of the court's ultimate ruling on the legal arguments, this case shows the real-world effects that investigations and long legal battles can have on nonprofit groups working on important justice issues.