The case is First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin.
The legal fight dates back to November 2023, when Attorney General Matt Platkin issued a subpoena to the First Choice pro-life ministry. Citing his authority to investigate consumer fraud, the Democrat said he was investigating the nonprofit for misleading pregnant women, and its donors, about the medical and counseling services First Choice provides.
Without any overt reference to a pro-life stance, the home page for First Choice takes more of an “informed decision” approach for women. The ministry states it provides pregnancy-related services for women, such as pregnancy testing, ultrasounds, and counseling, at five locations in New Jersey.
A much more straightforward message at the bottom of the website states First Choice is an “abortion clinic alternative” that does not perform abortions nor refer women for what it calls “termination services.”
Caught off guard by the state subpoena, First Choice objected to the legal inquiry and filed suit in federal court to block it, citing a constitutional right to free speech and a private donor list.
First Choice is being represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, the religious liberty law firm that has fought and won cases before the nine justices in the past.
ADF attorney Gabriella McIntrye says a Supreme Court decision that sides with First Choice would be “good for everyone,” because all nonprofits deserve the right to keep their donors private.
"Even the ACLU agrees with First Choice, and supported First Choice in a brief to the Supreme Court,” she shares. “Because today it is First Choice, but tomorrow it could be anyone who is facing a hostile state government official.”
Constitutional attorney Carrie Severino, president of Judicial Crisis Network, advised AFN the case being argued is a legally clunky one. That’s because the justices are hearing an argument over the proper venue, a federal court or a state court, to fight the subpoena.
"The Supreme Court is here not really to deal with the underlying disclosure question because that, frankly, is already open and shut. They decided that in a case a few years ago,” Severino advised.
