Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas took a stand on Tuesday, pressing New Jersey officials to justify their intrusive investigation into a pro-life pregnancy center with no evidence of wrongdoing.
According to Daily Caller, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin issued a subpoena in November 2023, demanding years of internal documents and details on nearly 5,000 donations from First Choice Women’s Resource Centers. The center contends this move stifles their First Amendment rights and threatens donor privacy.
During the hearing for First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, Thomas directly challenged Sundeep Iyer, chief counsel to the state attorney general, asking, “So you had no basis to think that they were deceiving any of their contributors?” Iyer’s weak response about the center’s website appearing misleading hardly justifies such an aggressive subpoena, exposing a fishing expedition rather than a legitimate inquiry.
A majority of justices appeared skeptical of New Jersey’s stance, with Justice Elena Kagan noting the chilling effect of such actions. She remarked, “An ordinary person, one of the funders of this organization or any similar organization, presented with this subpoena and then told ‘but don’t worry, it has to be stamped by a court,’ is not going to take that as very reassuring,” highlighting the real fear donors face.
The state’s claim that the subpoena isn’t self-executing and can’t yet be challenged in federal court rings hollow. If left unchecked, this tactic allows bureaucrats to harass organizations they dislike without immediate accountability.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett also pointed to a broader pattern of hostility, stating, “The Attorney General had essentially, what your friends on the other side would say, declared war on pregnancy centers.” Her words underscore a troubling trend of targeting groups that don’t align with a progressive agenda on abortion.
Pro-life advocates argue this case fits into a larger campaign of intimidation against pregnancy centers, especially post-Roe v. Wade’s reversal in 2022. Nearly 100 such centers and groups have faced attacks since the Dobbs decision leak, showing the stakes for these organizations.
New Jersey’s actions aren’t isolated, as Platkin signed a 2023 letter accusing pregnancy centers of misleading consumers and issued a consumer alert warning against them as part of a post-Roe “Strike Force.” Such moves suggest a deliberate effort to undermine centers that provided an estimated $452 million in services to 1 million clients in 2024.
Other states like New York and Colorado have similarly targeted these centers, though some efforts, like Colorado’s ban on abortion pill reversal discussions, were struck down by a federal judge. The consistent pressure reveals a coordinated attempt to silence voices offering alternatives to abortion.
First Choice’s challenge raises critical concerns about donor privacy and the right to associate freely without government intrusion. Even left-leaning groups like the American Civil Liberties Union have supported the center, recognizing the dangerous precedent this sets.
The ACLU and Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression argued in a brief that using subpoena power to “censor, regulate, or chill disfavored speech violates the First Amendment.” Their stance shows that this issue transcends ideological lines when basic liberties are at stake.
New Jersey’s flimsy justification for targeting First Choice, absent any direct complaints, smacks of political vendetta rather than consumer protection. It’s a stark reminder of how easily state power can be weaponized against dissenting voices.
First Choice remains resolute, asserting they were singled out for their impact in supporting women and families. Their fight is not just for their own survival but for the principle that no organization should face harassment for holding views counter to state orthodoxy.
The Supreme Court’s handling of this case could set a vital boundary on how far officials can go in probing private entities without cause. If New Jersey’s tactics stand, expect more groups to face similar scrutiny for simply existing outside the approved narrative.
Ultimately, this battle is about preserving the space for pro-life centers to operate without fear of retribution from ideologically driven officials. Their work, valued at hundreds of millions in services, deserves protection, not persecution, from a government that seems all too eager to pick winners and losers in the cultural arena.
