Supreme Court Skeptical of New Jersey Investigation Into Pro-life Pregnancy Center

In 2023 New Jersey’s attorney general, Matthew Platkin, launched an investigation targeting First Choice, a group of pro-life pregnancy centers in the state. He issued subpoenas as part of the investigation demanding, among other things, names of the group’s donors. The case then worked its way through the courts for the past two years:

First Choice, which describes itself as “a faith-based nonprofit” that provides “material support and medical services like ultrasounds and pregnancy tests under the direction of a licensed medical director,” went to federal court in New Jersey to challenge the subpoena…

A federal judge in Trenton, New Jersey, declined to block the subpoena. U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp ruled that the dispute was not yet “ripe” – that is, ready for the federal court to take up…

When Platkin attempted to enforce the subpoena, a state court granted his request and directed First Choice to “respond fully” to the state’s demands for information…

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals also sided with Platkin and the case was eventually appealed to the Supreme Court. Today, oral arguments were held and the consensus among media observers is that the Justices sounded pretty sympathetic to First Choice and pretty skeptical of the claims made by Platkin and New Jersey.

Tuesday, the Supreme Court appeared sympathetic to First Choice’s argument, which is backed by other religious and antiabortion groups and also by some free-press advocates. The threat of disclosure was enough to make donors think twice about giving to the group, several justices suggested.

“You don’t think it might have a future effect on donors if their name, addresses and phone number is disclosed?” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked an attorney for New Jersey…

A range of ideological groups, from LGBTQ+ advocates to firearms rights organizations, have increasingly come under scrutiny by attorneys general armed with broad powers. They say the ability to file suits against subpoenas in federal court at an early stage of litigation will give them a tool to fight politically motivated investigations. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press told the justices in a friend-of-the-court brief that investigative subpoenas could be used to threaten news organizations that investigate official misconduct.

Platkin has maintained that the state wasn’t targeting First Choice’s donors, only concerned that people were misled by the group’s website. The Federalist reports that Justice Thomas asked a penetrating question on this point.

In his line of questioning to Platkin’s chief counsel, Sundeep Iyer, Thomas asked the defendant about the Democrat attorney general’s rationale for investigating First Choice to begin with. He specifically probed whether Platkin received “any complaints that formed the basis of [his] concern about the fundraising activities [by First Choice].”

Iyer seemingly attempted to skirt the senior justice’s question. He began by saying that they “certainly had complaints about crisis pregnancy centers,” but was cut off by Thomas, who more specifically asked about “this crisis pregnancy center.”

In a stunning admission, Iyer acknowledged that the New Jersey AG’s office hasn’t “had complaints about this specific [center],” claiming he “thinks” this was made “clear from the outset.” The answer prompted Thomas to interject and ask, “So, you had no basis to think that [First Choice was] deceiving any of their contributors?”

This had nothing to do with complaints and everything to do with partisan abortion politics, as the NY Times makes clear in its own story about the arguments:

New Jersey’s attorney general, Matthew J. Platkin, issued the subpoena in the year following the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade. That ruling, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, led states throughout the country to re-examine abortion access and put a spotlight on centers like First Choice.

That’s not speculation either. The connection to pro-abortion politics is undeniable fact, backed up by statements made by Platkin and New Jersey’s governor at the time he announced these actions in 2022:

“I applaud Attorney General Platkin for his continued efforts to support women’s fundamental right to reproductive health care in our state. By protecting reproductive care providers and women who travel to our state for such care, New Jersey will become a refuge for those seeking these critical services,” said Governor Murphy. “My Administration will continue to make true on its promises to all women seeking the reproductive care they need and will set a standard for reproductive health care across our nation.”

“Under Governor Murphy’s leadership, our State is deeply committed to protecting the rights of those who provide and receive reproductive services, and our office will continue to use every available resource to protect access to abortion care here in New Jersey,” said Attorney General Platkin…

One week after the Dobbs decision, Governor Phil Murphy signed legislation establishing critical protections for patients and providers. 

This was a fishing expedition by pro-abortion politicians who wanted to use their offices to burden pro-life groups in the state. Fortunately, the Supreme Court doesn’t seem inclined to play along.

“Pregnancy centers are being increasingly targeted by abortion advocates.”

Karen Czarnecki, Executive Director of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, weighs in on today’s Supreme Court case, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin.

Learn more at https://t.co/aqfaFtD4lg… pic.twitter.com/fM09f4ysrL

— Alliance Defending Freedom (@ADFLegal) December 2, 2025

Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Hot Air’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.

Join Hot Air VIP and use the promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership!