The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to take up a case surrounding New Jersey’s seemingly targeted investigation of pro-life pregnancy centers following the end of Roe v. Wade.
The high court will specifically weigh in on whether or not First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a group of faith-based pregnancy centers, is allowed to challenge New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin’s investigation in federal court — an investigation the organization argues is unconstitutional.
Platkin served a subpoena demanding First Choice identify donors behind nearly 5,000 donations by name and produce ten years of internal documents. First Choice tried to challenge the subpoena in federal court, arguing that the state had violated the First Amendment. Platkin responded by filing his own lawsuit in state court, an action which led lower federal courts to rule that First Choice must pursue federal claims in state court first. In response, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to hold that civil rights plaintiffs do not need to litigate challenges to state investigations in state court before they can bring federal claims.
“The question presented is: Where the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, is a federal court in a first-filed action deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court?” ADF wrote on behalf of First Choice.
The petition further argues that Platkin, a Democrat, “has made no secret of his hostility towards pregnancy centers.”
“He issued a consumer alert—drafted with the help of Planned Parenthood—complaining that such centers do not provide or refer for abortion. He also signed an open letter pledging to take legal action against pregnancy centers,” the petition details.
“The Attorney General made good on that pledge by issuing an invasive Subpoena to First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc., a collection of five medically-licensed centers that offer free medical services and material support to women facing unplanned pregnancies,” it continues. “Though the Attorney General could not identify a single complaint, he demanded that First Choice turn over years of sensitive internal information—including donor information about nearly 5,000 contributions.”
Poll: Americans Support Abortion Limits, Pregnancy Resource Centers Ahead of March for Life
ADF Senior Counsel Erin Hawley, vice president of the ADF Center for Life and Regulatory Practice, accused Platkin of “targeting” pro-life pregnancy centers.
“New Jersey’s attorney general is targeting First Choice—a ministry that provides parenting classes, free ultrasounds, baby clothes, and more to its community—simply because of its pro-life views,” Hawley said in a statement. “The Constitution protects First Choice and its donors from unjustified demands to disclose their identities, and First Choice is entitled to vindicate those rights in federal court.
“The First Amendment protects First Choice’s right to freely speak about its beliefs, exercise its faith, associate with like-minded individuals and organizations, and continue to provide its free services in a caring and compassionate environment to people facing unplanned pregnancies,” Hawley added. “The lower courts have wrongly held that First Choice is relegated to state court to present its constitutional claims. We are looking forward to presenting our case to the Supreme Court and urging it to hold that First Choice has the same right to federal court as any other civil rights plaintiff.”
RELATED: Supreme Court Orders Lower Court to Reconsider Religious Challenge to New York Abortion Mandate
Platkin’s office contends it issued the subpoena as part of an investigation into whether First Choice has violated New Jersey’s consumer fraud and other state laws by misleading donors and potential clients about its stance on abortion. First Choice notably states on its website that it “is an abortion clinic alternative that does not perform or refer for termination services.”
Platkin’s office asked the Supreme Court to let the lower ruling stand.
“The Third Circuit specifically considered Petitioner’s allegations and record evidence, along with the unique procedural posture, and held that Petitioner had not sufficiently presented any chill to its constitutional rights stemming from the subpoena,” Platkin’s office wrote in court filings.
In a statement, as reported by the Hill, Platkin stands by his subpoena and emphasized that the Supreme Court is only answering a procedural question.
“I am optimistic that we will prevail when the Supreme Court considers that question this fall,” Platkin said. “First Choice is looking for a special exception from the usual procedural rules as it tries to avoid complying with an entirely lawful state subpoena, something the U.S. Constitution does not permit it to do. No industry is entitled to that type of special treatment—period.”
The case is First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, No. 24-781 in the Supreme Court of the United States.
Katherine Hamilton is a political reporter for Breitbart News. You can follow her on X @thekat_hamilton.
Read the full article here