The federal government has joined 19 states and several nationwide religious liberty organizations to support a pro-life Christian ministry in New Jersey, as it prepares for a predicted legal confrontation with the state at the U.S. Supreme Court this fall.
The case, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, involves an investigation by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin into First Choice, a firm offering counseling, medical services, diapers, and other assistance to over 36,000 women facing unplanned pregnancies across New Jersey.
The lawsuit claims that Platkin violated the ministry’s First Amendment rights by targeting its religious and pro-life mission without providing any evidence of wrongdoing.
Calling it a "simple case" based on "bedrock principles" of federal law, the brief from the U.S. Department of Justice echoed a similar filing from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which warned of an "exploding" rise in politically motivated investigations by state officials.
In December 2023, Platkin was one of 16 Democratic state attorneys general who signed a letter accusing pro-life pregnancy centers of engaging in "misinformation and harm" by "misleading consumers and delaying access to critical, time-sensitive reproductive healthcare."
The month prior, Platkin issued a subpoena to the petitioners, demanding they produce several documents within one month, including a list of donations made to the group and other confidential information. The subpoena did not specify any alleged legal violations but referenced state statutes that prohibit "deceptive commercial practices."
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a nonprofit legal organization advocating for religious freedom and representing First Choice, filed a federal lawsuit in December 2023 to challenge the investigation. However, lower courts ruled that the claims must be pursued first in state court.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on the case in the fall.
The lower courts deemed the subpoena "non-self-enforcing" and stated there would be no penalty for refusing to comply until a state court issues an enforcement order. Supporters and petitioners have questioned whether those courts correctly interpreted state law.
"There are many recent examples of governments ordering disfavored groups to divulge their confidential internal materials, without regard to the severe and obvious chilling effects on speech and association that these demands create," the Chamber of Commerce filing states. "The First Amendment guards against 'use of the power to investigate enforced by the contempt power to probe at will and without relation to existing need.'"
In their legal brief, 19 states, led by Missouri, argued that Platkin's investigation infringes on First Amendment rights and that federal courts have jurisdiction to oversee such claims.
