Supreme Court will hear case involving pregnancy resource center

This fall, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case of a pregnancy resource center (PRC) that has allegedly faced harassment from the pro-abortion New Jersey attorney general.

Key Takeaways:

• In 2023, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a lawsuit on behalf of First Choice Women's Resource Centers against New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin.

• The lawsuit claims that Platkin worked with Planned Parenthood to create an "unreasonable subpoena" that infringes upon the PRC's free speech.

• Platkin additionally opened an investigation into First Choice Women's Resource Centers for allegedly violating the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

• In January, ADF asked the Supreme Court to hear the case, and in June, the Court agreed.

• The case has now been added to the Supreme Court's fall schedule.

The Details:

First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a Christian pro-life nonprofit in New Jersey, is poised to make its case before the United States Supreme Court this fall, arguing that government officials have undermined First Amendment freedoms by trying to silence its Christian and pro-life ministry. The Supreme Court added First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin to its fall schedule that begins in October, according to a report from Christianity Today. 

At the crux of the dispute is a 2023 subpoena issued by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, demanding First Choice submit private information, such as staff details, donor lists, and marketing strategies, under the pretext of a consumer fraud probe. New Jersey claimed that some women may have been deceived into thinking the pro-life center offers abortion referrals — an allegation First Choice has denied.

Debunking the common myths about pregnancy resource centers

Attorneys for First Choice Women’s Resource Centers stated that First Choice is a “faith-based, pro-life pregnancy center," previously contesting Platkin’s subpoena in a federal court, before finally appealing to the Supreme Court.

The Context:

First Choice protested against Platkin’s demand that it reveal donor information, as well as expose staff and supporters to potential harassment, thereby denting its capacity to help vulnerable women. 

“New Jersey’s attorney general is targeting First Choice — a ministry that provides parenting classes, free ultrasounds, baby clothes, and more to its community — simply because of its pro-life views,” First Choice’s attorneys said.

“State attorneys general on both sides of the political aisle have been accused of misusing this authority to issue demands against their ideological and political opponents,” they continued. “Even if these accusations turn out to be false, it is important that a federal forum exists for suits challenging those investigative demands.”

Moreover, First Choice has reiterated that it has been transparent about its services. Although it does not provide abortion referrals, it provides information about abortion procedures and alternatives.

On his end, Platkin has attempted to implement the subpoena in state court, but the judge in that court rejected his demand that First Choice hand over documents. He instead instructed both sides to negotiate between themselves.

The Bottom Line:

In the long haul and on a broader scale, the Supreme Court’s ruling on this case will have far-reaching ramifications beyond New Jersey.

As with the 2018 NIFLA v. Becerra court decision, where faith-based pregnancy centers won legal safeguards against compelled government speech regarding abortion, a ruling favoring First Choice could further reinforce the ability of pro-life groups to function without government intrusiveness, setting a legal precedent for the pro-life cause nationwide.