The U.S. Supreme Court appears to be leaning in favor of a group of five pro-life pregnancy centers in New Jersey. The justices heard oral arguments last week in the case pitting Christian-based First Choice Women’s Resource Centers against the state attorney general.
Two years ago, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin subpoenaed First Choice Pregnancy Centers, demanding their donors’ identities and contact information. First Choice refused, maintaining that the information should be kept private.
Sundeep Iyer, chief counsel representing the New Jersey attorney general, told the high court Tuesday that their request was part of an investigation into whether First Choice tricked donors into thinking they were contributing to an abortion provider.
“Our entire purpose in asking for the category of donor information that we asked about was to evaluate whether any donors themselves might have been deceived by the representations on the donor pages maintained by First Choice,” he said.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked Iyer to clarify his statement.
“I gather that you think the website might have made them think that this was an entity that provided abortion care as opposed to a pro-life entity? That was the concern?” she said, to which Iyer replied, “Yes, that’s right, your honor.”
However, First Choice attorney Erin Hawley told the justices the organization’s website clearly presents a pro-life stance.
“It is not in the least misleading,” she said. “It pictures smiling faces of babies and their families, that there is no question that it belongs to something like Planned Parenthood.”
***Please sign up for CBN Newsletters to ensure you receive the latest news from a distinctly Christian perspective.***
Hawley went on to say the true reason behind the subpoena involves a widespread attack on the pro-life movement.
“This is in the context of a hostile attorney general who has issued a consumer alert, urged New Jerseyans to beware of pregnancy centers and assembled a strike force against them,” she said, to which Justice Clarence Thomas asked, “Were there complaints against you that stimulated the subpoena?”
“No, your honor,” Hawley replied. “The attorney general has never identified a single complaint.”
Furthermore, First Choice says disclosing donor information violates their freedom of speech and would scare them away.
“Some donors gave as little as ten dollars,” she said. “Those folks are going to be worried about a state attorney general, the highest law enforcement officer in the country, demanding their names, phone numbers, addresses, places of employment, so that he can contact them.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed, saying, “This is just kind of obvious that there’s some kind of objective chill from a subpoena on speech.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch commented on First Choice donors, saying that if they were forced to reveal their identities, it would most likely impact their actions.
“They’re saying, ‘If we’d known that this was going to happen, we wouldn’t have given,’ or, ‘If it’s going to be disclosed, we won’t give.’ I mean, doesn’t that just follow night from day?”
Even the ACLU filed a brief calling the attorney general’s move “suppression by subpoena,” and “censorship by intimidation.”
The high court is expected to issue its ruling on the case in June.
