Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin. I first previewed the case when the Court granted certiorari in June. As I’ve written, this case is part of a broader campaign—waged by Planned Parenthood’s New Jersey affiliate in concert with state officials—to target pro-life pregnancy centers. Attorney General Matthew Platkin has made no secret of his hostility, working with Planned Parenthood to issue a consumer alert disparaging these centers and then demanding that First Choice identify nearly 5,000 of its donors. This harassment tactic is indistinguishable from what the Court struck down in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (2021).
As I noted at the start of this term, the question before the justices is procedural: whether a litigant with a reasonably objective claim that their First Amendment rights have been chilled can be forced to move their case to state court even if they filed in federal court first. But the consequences are anything but technical. If Platkin prevails, he could extract donor information through New Jersey’s friendly state courts before First Choice ever gets federal review—and once that information is out, the damage to pregnancy centers and their donors cannot be undone. The recent climate of escalating political attacks and even violence only underscores how critical it is that pregnancy resource centers and their donors have meaningful access to federal courts to vindicate their constitutional rights. I expect these concerns will surface during tomorrow’s oral argument.