New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin faces a pivotal Supreme Court fight over a sweeping subpoena targeting First Choice Women’s Resource Centers. First Choice argues the move violates First Amendment rights and chills anonymous giving, after a statewid
By the time First Choice Women’s Resource Centers challenged New Jersey’s actions in court, the dispute had already moved well past a typical regulatory disagreement.
The state attorney general’s office had launched a statewide “consumer alert. ” assembled what it called a “strike force. ” and then issued a sweeping subpoena seeking “over a decade’s worth” of documentation from the faith-based pregnancy resource group. Among the material First Choice was ordered to produce were the identities, phone numbers, and personal addresses of nearly 5,000 donors.
Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for Dec. 2, and the stakes extend beyond one organization. The Supreme Court will decide whether First Choice can challenge the subpoena in federal court before it is enforced through state court. a threshold fight that could determine how other pregnancy centers respond to similar state pressure.
First Choice provides assistance without abortion referrals
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers is a faith-based group that provides parenting classes. ultrasounds. baby clothes. and other services to its community free of charge. The organization assists mothers facing unplanned pregnancies and offers support aimed at helping them choose life. It does not provide or refer for abortions.
After First Choice’s pro-life stance did not align with the attorney general’s approach, New Jersey’s Attorney General Matthew Platkin took steps that First Choice says were meant to punish the center simply because it does not perform abortions.
The subpoena followed a statewide “consumer alert”
The attorney general’s office asked Planned Parenthood—an organization that profits from abortions—for help drafting the statewide “consumer alert. ” according to the case record described by First Choice. The First Choice lawsuit also points to the attorney general’s office thanking Planned Parenthood for its “partnership. ” as presented in the litigation.
First Choice says the subpoena that followed is politically motivated retaliation. It also says the attorney general has not identified a single complaint against First Choice.
The request for donor information is at the center of the legal fight. The subpoena demands “over a decade’s worth” of documentation, including the identities, phone numbers, and personal addresses of nearly 5,000 donors.
First Amendment protections for private association
First Choice argues that forcing disclosure would violate the Constitution and undermine the First Amendment protections that allow people to support advocacy groups privately and anonymously. The argument is grounded in the idea that revealing membership or support exposes individuals’ most deeply held beliefs.
That disclosure, First Choice contends, would create a chilling effect on donors—making it less likely they would contribute if their information could be exposed to a state official it describes as hostile to pro-life viewpoints.
Because of the alleged First Amendment violations, First Choice filed a federal lawsuit urging the courts to protect those freedoms. The lower courts dismissed the lawsuit without reviewing the First Amendment issues.
The fight over whether federal court is open
Before the U.S. Supreme Court, New Jersey’s attorney general argues that subpoenas generally may not be challenged in federal court until a state court first enforces them.
First Choice’s position is that waiting would effectively close the federal courthouse door through other judicial doctrines—contradicting the promise of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. That statute. First Choice argues. entitles victims of unconstitutional treatment by state officials to seek relief in federal court rather than being relegated to state court.
First Choice, with legal representation described in the case material, is asking the Supreme Court to affirm its right to its day in federal court.
The lawsuit is framed as precedent for pregnancy centers nationwide
While the dispute is rooted in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, the legal significance is broader. The case is expected to set a crucial precedent for pregnancy centers nationwide facing what First Choice describes as harassment and intimidation by state officials.
First Choice points to other efforts by attorneys general in states including California and New York, where it says officials have attempted to censor pro-life pregnancy centers that tell women it might be possible to reverse the life-ending effects of the abortion drug mifepristone.
After Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, First Choice says pregnancy centers in multiple states were vandalized and firebombed, and that many are still awaiting justice.
First Choice is asking the Supreme Court to safeguard what it describes as its right to challenge Platkin’s actions in federal court, while also discouraging other state actors from using similar tactics.
For the organization, the dispute is personal and immediate: it wants to get back to providing parenting classes, ultrasounds, baby clothes, and other support to women facing unplanned pregnancies—without fear of unjust government retaliation.
New Jersey Matthew Platkin Supreme Court pregnancy centers First Choice Women’s Resource Centers subpoena donor records First Amendment anonymous giving Civil Rights Act of 1871 Planned Parenthood mifepristone