The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday from a group of five faith-based pregnancy centers in New Jersey. They’re pushing back after the state’s attorney general demanded information about their donors and fundraising, arguing that he’s violating the First Amendment.
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers is a Christian, pro-life, medical nonprofit that serves pregnant mothers, mothers of newborns, and fathers, according to Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the group’s attorneys.
ADF explains that New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin demanded in November 2023 that First Choice identify—by name—the donors behind nearly 5,000 donations and produce up to 10 years of its internal, confidential documents.
First Choice filed a lawsuit a month later to challenge the subpoena, arguing it was burdensome, violated their First Amendment rights, and would have a “chilling” effect on its donors. They cited that complying with the demand would discourage donations and harm the organization because it sought the identities of staff members. Additionally, the group claimed the attorney general was targeting the collection of pro-life groups because of their views.
The attorney general and his office filed a lawsuit in state court, arguing they wanted to investigate whether First Choice misled women about whether it provides abortions and if donors were giving money under the belief that it was an abortion provider.
“Non-profits, including crisis pregnancy centers, may not deceive or defraud residents in our State, and we may exercise our traditional investigative authority to ensure that they are not doing so — as we do to protect New Jerseyans from a range of harms,” Platkin said in a statement.
ADF noted that the First Amendment protects donor identities from unjustified disclosure and prohibits a state official from retaliating against speech with which he disagrees.
“New Jersey’s attorney general is targeting First Choice Women’s Resource Centers—a ministry that provides free ultrasounds, baby clothes, and more to its community—simply because of its pro-life views,” said ADF Senior Counsel Erin Hawley, vice president of the ADF Center for Life and Regulatory Practice. “The U.S. Constitution protects First Choice and its donors from unjustified demands for their identities, and First Choice is entitled to vindicate those rights in federal court.”
READ ‘Extremist’: State Attorneys General Weaponizing Laws to Attack Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers
In January 2024, a district court dismissed the pro-life organization’s case for lack of jurisdiction, and First Choice appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, which ruled against First Choice.
ADF attorneys asked the U.S. Supreme Court to recognize First Choice’s right to file a federal lawsuit against Platkin.
“For more than two years, Attorney General Platkin has been targeting First Choice with aggressive demands for sensitive documents, including our donors’ identities,” said First Choice Executive Director Aimee Huber. “He has gone to great lengths to frustrate the important work we do—work that has made a tangible, life-saving difference for tens of thousands of New Jersey women and their children. The government can’t harass those who support pro-life ministries just because it disagrees with their message and their mission.”
During oral arguments, the Supreme Court justices appeared “sympathetic” toward the pro-life group, SCOTUS Blog reports.
Platkin’s attorneys argued the subpoena was “non-self-executing,” meaning the attorney general cannot simply enforce the demand or impose penalties for noncompliance, but instead must go to court to do so.
“Justice Samuel Alito pressed a related point, appearing to suggest that the state had characterized the subpoena as non-self-executing as a litigation tactic rather than because it necessarily believed that was the case,” explained Amy Howe for SCOTUS blog.
Several justices also asked if the subpoena could give “ordinary” donors pause before contributing or associating with First Choice.
“I’m an ordinary person…and maybe this (subpoena) will be denied, maybe it won’t,” said Justice Elena Kagan. “I’m fearful of that. I don’t want my name being given.”
However, in a statement released before oral arguments, Platkin contended, “the question before the U.S. Supreme Court focuses on whether First Choice sued prematurely, not whether our subpoena was valid,” adding, “I am optimistic that we will prevail.”
A decision in the case is expected by late June or early July 2026.
***Please sign up for CBN Newsletters and download the CBN News app to ensure you keep receiving the latest news from a distinctly Christian perspective.***
