New Jersey’s far-reaching subpoena demanding donor identities from a pro-life pregnancy center faces Supreme Court scrutiny in a case that could redefine constitutional protections for conservative donors nationwide.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court has agreed to hear First Choice Resource Centers’ challenge to a New Jersey subpoena demanding donor names and addresses.
- New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin claims the subpoena is necessary to investigate potential consumer fraud, but has provided no evidence of complaints or actual harm.
- The Alliance Defending Freedom argues this is a targeted attack on a pro-life organization that violates First Amendment rights to free speech and association.
- This case follows the Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling that protected donor anonymity and could strengthen protections against government overreach.
- Revealing donor identities creates serious risk of harassment and intimidation against conservative donors, similar to what happened to Proposition 8 supporters.
Attorney General’s Overreach Targets Pro-Life Ministry
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin has issued a sweeping subpoena to First Choice Resource Centers, demanding detailed information about their donors, marketing practices, and medical providers. The subpoena, issued under the state’s Consumer Fraud Act, claims First Choice may be misleading donors and clients about the health services they provide. However, the Attorney General has failed to provide evidence of any consumer complaints or actual harm resulting from the organization’s practices.
The timing and scope of this investigation have raised serious concerns about potential political motivation. First Choice operates five locations throughout New Jersey, providing free ultrasounds, parenting classes, baby clothes, and other support services to women facing unplanned pregnancies. The organization’s pro-life stance appears to have made it a target in a state with strongly progressive abortion policies, especially following the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade.
“First Choice—a crisis pregnancy center operating in New Jersey—has for years refused to answer questions about their operations in New Jersey and the potential misrepresentations they have been making, including about reproductive healthcare,” Platkin said in a statement. “We issued a lawful subpoena in November 2023 to ensure that First Choice was complying with all relevant state laws. Nonprofits, including crisis pregnancy centers, may not deceive or defraud residents in our State, and we may exercise our traditional investigative authority to ensure that they are not doing so—as we do to protect New Jerseyans from a range of harms,” said Matthew Platkin, New Jersey Attorney General.
Constitutional Rights at Stake
First Choice, with legal representation from the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), has challenged the subpoena as a clear violation of constitutional rights. The ADF argues that compelling the disclosure of donor information infringes on First Amendment protections for free speech and association. This legal team has a strong track record in similar cases, including a significant 2018 Supreme Court victory against California’s requirements forcing crisis pregnancy centers to promote abortion services.
“Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions. Freedom of speech secures freedom of thought and belief. This law (California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care and Transparency Act) imperils those liberties,” said Justice Kennedy.
Platkin has argued that “identifying those donors would allow the state to determine if they were ultimately misled.” This justification appears particularly weak given the lack of evidence showing actual consumer complaints or harm. More concerning is that such disclosure could lead to targeted harassment of donors who support pro-life causes, creating a chilling effect on charitable giving and free expression. The Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case signals its recognition of the serious constitutional questions at stake.
Risks of Donor Exposure in Today’s Political Climate
The potential consequences of forced donor disclosure extend far beyond this single case. History has shown that exposing the identities of donors to controversial causes can lead to severe personal and professional repercussions. Following California’s Proposition 8, supporters whose names were made public faced job loss, business boycotts, and personal harassment. A New York Times report documented how one supporter received “confrontational e-mail messages … one signed message blasted him for supporting the measure and was copied to a dozen of his colleagues and supervisors at the university.”
“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,” attorney Erin Hawley said. “We are looking forward to presenting our case to the Supreme Court,” said Erin Hawley, Alliance Defending Freedom Attorney
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case could strengthen the precedent established in its 2021 ruling that protected donor anonymity under the First Amendment. That case, Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, found that California’s demand for donor information from nonprofit organizations violated constitutional rights. Given the current Court’s composition and its recent history of protecting religious liberty and free speech, there is strong reason to believe First Choice will prevail in defending donor privacy against government intrusion.
A Pattern of Progressive Overreach
This case represents just one example of a broader pattern where progressive state officials use regulatory power to target conservative and faith-based organizations. The lack of evidence for any actual consumer harm or fraud suggests this investigation is politically motivated rather than a legitimate consumer protection effort. If successful, such tactics could be deployed nationwide against conservative organizations, using the power of government to intimidate donors and cripple opposition through administrative harassment.
With the investigation now on hold pending the Supreme Court’s review, the case highlights the ongoing battle over free speech and religious liberty in America. The Court’s willingness to hear this challenge suggests the justices recognize the serious constitutional issues at stake. Their decision could either reinforce vital First Amendment protections for all Americans or open the door to increased government surveillance and intimidation of conservative donors and organizations.
