SCOTUS reviews New Jersey’s fishing expedition against pro-life centers

On December 2, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in First Choice Women’s Resource Center v. Platkin, a potentially far-reaching dispute over whether public officials could, without justification, investigate the activities of a faith-based, pro-life organization.

New Jersey officials sought to compel First Choice Women’s Resource Center—whose staff members “encourage and equip women and men to make informed pregnancy decisions”—to disclose the names of donors over unfounded allegations that it may have misled them and clients about its pro-life activities.

Due to the hostility officials demonstrated toward First Choice, this column initially reviews the dispute’s judicial history before highlighting the Supreme Court’s oral arguments and reflecting on its significance.

Background to First Choice Women’s Resource Center v. Platkin

In 2023, New Jersey’s Division of Consumer Affairs issued a subpoena to investigate First Choice over unsubstantiated concerns that it may have misled donors and clients about its pro-life services. A not-for-profit organization, First Choice provides free parenting classes, ultrasounds, baby clothes, diapers, car seats, and Bible classes to women facing unplanned pregnancies regardless of their ages, races, religions, or ability to pay. It does not offer or refer clients for abortions.

New Jersey’s openly pro-abortion Attorney General, Matthew J. Platkin, whose staff “could not identify a single complaint [against it]…demanded that First Choice turn over years of sensitive internal information—including donor information about nearly 5,000 contributions.”

First Choice objected because these disclosures could have had a “chilling” effect on donors who might stop contributing because of fears about state officials’ antipathy toward their pro-life beliefs. Platkin, who remains defiant, additionally demonstrated hostility towards pro-life pregnancy centers by issuing a consumer alert warning against them while allowing pro-abortion Planned Parenthood employees to preview and edit the draft of his missive, thanking them for their “partnership.”

First Choice challenged the subpoena as violating its First Amendment right to freedom of association and donor privacy. A state trial court, in an unreported opinion, refused to terminate the subpoena but did not order First Choice to disclose the materials. Instead, the judge ordered the parties to negotiate an agreement over identifying donors while preserving the constitutional arguments for future litigation.

Dissatisfied, First Choice unsuccessfully turned to the federal trial court in New Jersey. A divided Third Circuit affirmed the denial of First Choice’s claims as not “ripe,” or ready for review, because state proceedings continued and it had yet to be ordered to disclose the requested information.

The Supreme Court: The issues and the arguments

With the support of such diverse groups as the United States Solicitor General and American Civil Liberties Union, organizations infrequently on the same side, First Choice appealed.

The Supreme Court agreed to intervene to address “[w]hen the recipient of a state investigatory subpoena demonstrates an objectively reasonable chill of its First Amendment rights, does a federal court lack jurisdiction to hear the case because those constitutional claims must first be resolved in state court?”

Led by the usually taciturn Justice Thomas, the majority of the Supreme Court seemed sympathetic to First Choice. In response to Thomas’ statement, “[s]o you had no complaints” against First Choice, New Jersey’s attorney had to admit, “[w]e had no complaints.” Still, he tried to justify the intrusive investigation because “there could be potential issues of legal compliance.”

After Thomas responded, “that just seems to be a burdensome way to find out whether someone has a confusing website,” even the usually liberal Justice Kagan followed with similar questions.

Justice Kavanaugh supported First Choice, citing the American Civil Liberties Union’s brief, which expressed concerns that New Jersey’s actions toward First Choice amounted to “suppression by subpoena and censorship by intimidation.” Kavanaugh added that “[t]his is just kind of obvious that there’s some kind of objective chill from a subpoena on speech.”

Earlier, Chief Justice Roberts mused whether the state’s action “might have an effect on future potential donors to the organization to know that their name, phone number, address, and other information could be disclosed as a result of the subpoena” state officials sent.

Moreover, Justices Alito, Barrett, and Gorsuch questioned the nature of the subpoenas and their potential negative impact on First Choice’s operations.

Pro-abortion Justice Brown initially minimized First Choice’s concerns because she thought it was unclear whether it would have had to disclose the disputed information. Later, however, she seemed to soften her stance as she wondered whether First Choice would have been unable to pursue its First Amendment claim in federal court, telling its lawyer that “you’ve sort of made it impossible for them,” Pro-abortion Justice Sotomayor appeared to be skeptical of First Choice’s claim as she was unsure what harm it might suffer.

Reflections and analysis

The majority of the Supreme Court justices have demonstrated sympathy to First Choice’s charge that state officials targeted it for its views in violation of its First Amendment right to association. They likewise appear to think that it should have the chance to litigate in federal court before turning to the state judiciary. That, combined with precedent, suggests that First Choice may well prevail.

2019’s Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, addressed whether officials could require the owners of a farm containing a small family graveyard to comply with a law ordering all cemeteries to remain open and accessible to the public during daylight hours. Ruling in the family’s favor, the Court held that because they ran the risk of having their property forfeited, the owners did not first have to litigate the issue in Pennsylvania courts before seeking federal review.

A case that the dissent at the Third Circuit highlighted offers even more support for First Choice. In 2021’s Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, the Justices invalidated California’s attempt to compel charities and not-for-profit organizations to disclose the names and addresses of their largest donors. The Justices explained that because California law was not narrowly tailored to achieve an important governmental interest, it violated the First Amendment associational rights of the organizations and their donors who may have feared that the disclosure of their names and addresses could have led to reprisals against them by abortion supporters.

In light of the fishing expedition New Jersey’s pro-abortion Attorney General launched against First Choice, the process is the punishment, as even the lawyer representing it conceded the lack of allegations of wrongdoing. Yet, apparently as a form of vengeance, New Jersey’s Platkin and representatives of Planned Parenthood schemed to force First Choice to use and spend resources it might otherwise have used to provide pro-life services to the unborn and their mothers in defending against this frivolous suit.

New Jersey’s politically motivated “investigation” reeked with the lack of impartiality designed to harass First Choice because, as noted, Platkin apparently teamed up with Planned Parenthood, the nation’s foremost pro-abortion group. Planned Parenthood received $792.2 million in federal funding in 2024, reporting that it “provided 402,230 abortions over the year, an increase of nearly 10,000 abortions from the previous year’s report and a record high in the abortion giant’s history.”

In seeking to force First Choice to disclose its donor list, New Jersey violated the First Amendment rights to freedom of association of individuals who contributed financial support to it and who likely fear that releasing their names would subject them to reprisals at the hands of unscrupulous public officials. In weaponizing the legal system against pro-lifers, these political activists also abused the fairness of the judicial process in demonstrating their lack of respect for the faith-based beliefs of First Choice and its donors.

Assuming that the Supreme Court finds in favor of First Choice, its judgment could preempt other abortion activists, such as mayor-elect of New York City, Zorhan Mandami, who has threatened to shut down pro-life pregnancy centers.