Ethics complaints filed against former New Jersey AG over pregnancy center harassment

On Tuesday, March 10, ethics complaints were filed against former New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin and his Chief Counsel Sundeep Iyer, denouncing them for abusing their authority to harass pro-life pregnancy resource centers (PRCs) without any proof of wrongdoing. This filing is the most recent action taken against Platkin for his harassment of pro-life institutions. 

Key Takeaways:

• Platkin has been embroiled in a court battle with New Jersey PRCs over claims of harassment.

• A non-governmental organization (NGO) has submitted several complaints against Platkin for abuse of authority in his crusade against PRCs.

• The ethics complaints were filed with the specific goal of holding politicians and government officials like Platkin accountable.

The Details:

The Center to Advance Security in America, a non-governmental organization headquartered in Washington, D.C., submitted three complaints against Platkin to the Office of Attorney Ethics in Trenton, New Jersey, as well as to the Attorney Grievance Committee of the Supreme Court’s Appellate Division, First Judicial Department in New York. 

All three complaints revolve around the oral arguments New Jersey delivered before the U.S. Supreme Court last December in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Matthew J. Platkin, the state’s attorney general. 

The filings maintained that by probing First Choice, Platkin and Iyer violated First Choice’s First Amendment protections.

“Platkin and Iyer decided to investigate a pregnancy care center for no apparent reason other than a general suspicion that pregnancy care centers operate incorrectly. No complaints led to the investigation, yet they chose to probe into the organization and its donors,” one of the complaints submitted to the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics read.

“Because knowingly depriving someone of their constitutional rights is a federal crime, the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics should investigate Platkin and impose discipline accordingly,” the complaint added. 

Pregnancy Resource Centers Provide Millions In Free Services

Curtis Schube, director of Research and Policy at CASA, explained the motivations behind the complaints, stating that his organization wanted to “try to keep different professionals, including attorneys, especially when they are involved in government, accountable.”

There has to be “some level of accountability for misbehaving attorneys” who are “using the power of government” in order “to target pregnancy care centers, faith-based nonprofits, especially their donors,” Schube added. 

“It’s our First Amendment right to be able to donate to places like this and the state has no right to dig into those finances unless there is some very specific investigation, sorry, reason to investigate them.”

The Backstory:

The debacle involving Platkin dates back to November 2023, when Platkin's office sent a sweeping subpoena to First Choice, a network of five faith-based pregnancy resource centers serving New Jersey families since 1985.

Platkin demanded names, addresses, phone numbers, and workplaces of nearly 5,000 donors, as well as 10 years of internal documents, client records, and personnel files. Notably, Platkin alleged potential breaches of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act as justification, despite zero consumer complaints against the centers. 

Platkin, who condemned Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization as an “extreme right-wing decision” and earmarked $5 million for abortion training grants, had warned against centers like First Choice for not committing or referring abortions. He even signed a letter with 15 other Democrat attorney generals slamming pro-life ministries of “misinformation and harm” via “deceptive tactics” that supposedly delay “reproductive healthcare."

In response, First Choice, supported by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), sued to protest Platkin’s subpoena, stating that it breached First and Fourteenth Amendment protections. First Choice claims that Platkin’s subpoena erodes free speech and association rights, scaring off donors vital to providing ultrasounds, parenting classes, and material aid to moms choosing life.

While hearing the oral arguments, Justice Clarence Thomas questioned Iyer about whether the attorney general’s office had actually received complaints that led to its worries over First Choice’s fundraising.

Iyer conceded that “we haven’t had complaints about this specific crisis pregnancy center,” confirming that the investigation was merely suspicion-based. 

The Bottom Line:

These recent ethics complaints reflect a pro-life resurgence against post-Dobbs persecution. If upheld, legal sanctions could deter similar legal bullying nationwide, defending pro-life donor privacy — a right reinforced in NAACP v. Alabama.