Pregnancy Resource Centers Targeted by New Jersey’s Attorney General to Get Their Day Before the Supreme Court

Next term, the Supreme Court will hear First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, a case brought by a faith-based pregnancy resource center that is being investigated by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin. This is part of a broader campaign, waged by Planned Parenthood’s New Jersey affiliate in concert with state officials, to target the state’s pro-life pregnancy centers. The Alliance Defending Freedom represents First Choice, a collection of five such centers that offer medical assistance and material support to women who seek help in the face of unplanned pregnancies.

As noted in the plaintiff’s cert petition, the state attorney general “has made no secret of his hostility towards pregnancy centers.” He openly pledged to take legal action against pregnancy resource centers and within months of his appointment worked with Planned Parenthood to issue a consumer alert disparaging them. He followed that up with a subpoena upon First Choice demanding, in addition to other sensitive internal information, identification of nearly 5,000 of their donors.

First Choice challenged the forced disclosures in federal court, and with good reason. This type of gratuitous donor disclosure in an effort to harass and destroy organizations disfavored by the state was held to be unconstitutional in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (2021). Platkin, hoping for a more favorable reception elsewhere, filed an enforcement action in state court and insisted that his case be decided first. Unfortunately the federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the switch, over the dissent of Judge Stephanos Bibas. Bibas pointed out that New Jersey’s attacks on pregnancy resources centers was “indistinguishable” from the Supreme Court’s AFP precedent.

Now the Supreme Court must determine 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. This procedural question carries significant consequences for the vindication of constitutional rights, because First Choice may be precluded from bringing the case in federal court at all. Even if they are allowed to sue later in federal court, AG Platkin may attempt to force First Choice to disclose its donor information in between a victory in New Jersey’s liberal state courts and his nearly inevitable loss in federal court. Once disclosures are unconstitutionally forced, you can’t undo the damage to the pregnancy centers and their donors.

This is a Court that takes seriously the responsibility to safeguard and uphold the First Amendment, so it is not surprising that it agreed to hear this case. Since the Court handed down its Dobbs decision in 2022, pregnancy resource centers have faced increased scrutiny, violence, and political attacks—surpassing the level of threats that faced the charities that challenged the California attorney general in AFP. It is difficult to overstate how important it is that they have legal avenues to challenge subpoenas and other actions taken against them.