Is SCOTUS Poised to Hand Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers a First Amendment Win?

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in First Choice v. Platkin, a case that could shape the pro-life movement in America for years to come. As Townhall reported back in November, New Jersey Attorney General has been on a years-long crusade to get donor info, statements on abortion pill reversal, personnel documents, information provided to clients and donors, information on outside organizations First Choice worked with, and copies of every First Choice solicitation and advertisement.

Platkin never accused First Choice of breaking any New Jersey laws or of any other wrongdoing. Instead, he accused the pro-life center of “misleading” donors into thinking they provided abortions. That claim is absurd on its face, of course.

During oral arguments, Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked Sundeep Iyer, Chief Counsel to the NJ Attorney General, if the state planned to contact donors to figure out if they believed they were donating to abortion clinics or a pro-life pregnancy center, and if First Choice’s website was “misleading.”

“I wouldn’t frame it exactly in those terms,” Iyer replied. “But I think we’re looking at whether or not the donors have potentially been deceived.”

“But that would be the subject of the deception, right?” Justice Coney Barrett asked. “I gather that you think the website might have made them think that this was an entity that provided abortion care as opposed to a pro-life entity, so that was the concern?”

“That’s right, Your Honor,” Iyre answered.

Aimee Huber, Executive Director of First Choice, called the move a “fishing expedition” and noted the state has the nation’s fifth-highest abortion rate. In a press call, Huber said, “Our state has done everything it could to make New Jersey a sanctuary state for abortion. Since pregnancy centers like ours do not perform or refer for abortions, we are targets for a government that disagrees with our views.”

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a suit on behalf of First Choice, calling Platkin’s subpoena “unlawful” and “unjust.” In the suit, ADF said Platkin “selectively targeted First Choice Women’s Resource Centers based on its religious speech and pro-life views with a wide-ranging, unfounded, and burdensome subpoena that requires the organization to expend its limited resources to produce extensive documentation or face judicial sanctions.”

A district court dismissed the suit in 2024, finding it lacked jurisdiction. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Platkin in 2024, and the ADF appealed to the Supreme Court.

Oral arguments were yesterday, and it appears the Supreme Court isn’t buying Platkin’s argument.

Here’s more from CNN:

A majority of the Supreme Court appeared skeptical Tuesday of New Jersey’s effort to subpoena donor information from “crisis pregnancy centers” without federal court review, fearing that the probe may have chilled the First Amendment rights of anti-abortion supporters.

The justices appeared likely to side with a religious nonprofit, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers – a decision that would allow the group to fight the state’s subpoena in federal court. Much of the roughly 90-minute oral argument focused on how far that decision might reach to similar subpoenas.

At a time when red and blue states are often pursuing radically different policies on abortion, immigration and LGBTQ rights, the religious nonprofit framed its inability to get into federal court as a threat to both liberal and conservative groups that could be targeted by state officials. Some justices also had that concern.

The implications of this case, not just for First Choice but for all Americans, cannot be understated. Plaktin is arguing he has the authority to harass a pro-life pregnancy center because it opposes abortion and provides non-abortion pregnancy care to women and families.

In an interview with EWTN, ADF’s Caleb Dalton laid out what this means.

“We think New Jersey had a bad day in court today, and rightly so. This case is about whether or not state officials can be held accountable when they harass their political and ideological opponents and weaponize the justice system against them,” Dalton said. 

“We’re hopeful that the court today, based on what we heard, we’re hopeful that they rule in favor of First Choice and allow them to have their day in court,” Dalton added.

Dalton also addressed the exchange between Justice Coney Barrett and Iyer. “First Choice is absolutely clear about what they do, and every donor that donates, there’s absolutely no evidence…Justice Thomas asked the Attorney General, ‘Have you ever received a complaint about this?’ and the answer was no,” Dalton said. 

“And just to make a point about the websites, that is absolutely disingenuous for the Attorney General to claim that there could be some sort of misinformation here,” Dalton said. “Because what we know is, first of all, First Choice is clear that they’re pro-life, but not only that, the Attorney General doesn’t need that donor information. If he truly thought there was something untoward going on, he actually doesn’t need that information. It’s an objective test, and he failed that test today.”

Given the targeted harassment aimed at pro-life pregnancy centers after the Dobbs ruling, First Choice and other pregnancy centers believe such fishing expeditions are meant to make private, anonymous donor information public so pro-abortion groups can target and intimidate donors, effectively cutting off revenue streams for pregnancy centers and the care they provide women.

“What the Attorney General is doing here is harassing First Choice Pregnancy Resource Centers that provides these resources to women in need, harassing them because they would like to provide women with the opportunity to choose life,” Dalton continued. “Evidence shows that when women have the type of resources that First Choice provides to them, they’re more likely to choose to keep their unborn child. And that’s what First Choice is there doing, and the Attorney General is harassing them simply because they hold a different ideological view than the Attorney General,” Dalton said.

This is a good and welcome development from the Supreme Court, and precedent is on the side of First Choice. In the 1950s and 60s, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the NAACP after southern states sought access to the organization’s donor records. In 2020, California did the same with charitable organizations in the state, only for the Supreme Court to smack the state down in that case, too.

In a November press call, ADF attorney Lincoln Wilson made it clear that First Choice, like the NAACP was protected by the First Amendment. “Because if you had their members identified,” Wilson said, “you could isolate the members and harm the organization’s mission. The U.S. Supreme Court said that’s protected information and states can’t get at that.”

It’s unlikely we’ll see a ruling in this case before the end of the Supreme Court’s current term, which runs through July 2026, but we’ll keep readers updated.

Editor’s Note: Every single day, here at Townhall, we will stand up and FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT against the radical left and deliver the conservative reporting our readers deserve.

Help us continue to tell the truth about the Trump administration and its successes. Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in First Choice v. Platkin, a case that could shape the pro-life movement in America for years to come. As Townhall reported back in November, New Jersey Attorney General has been on a years-long crusade to get donor info, statements on abortion pill reversal, personnel documents, information provided to clients and donors, information on outside organizations First Choice worked with, and copies of every First Choice solicitation and advertisement.

Platkin never accused First Choice of breaking any New Jersey laws or of any other wrongdoing. Instead, he accused the pro-life center of “misleading” donors into thinking they provided abortions. That claim is absurd on its face, of course.

During oral arguments, Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked Sundeep Iyer, Chief Counsel to the NJ Attorney General, if the state planned to contact donors to figure out if they believed they were donating to abortion clinics or a pro-life pregnancy center, and if First Choice’s website was “misleading.”

“I wouldn’t frame it exactly in those terms,” Iyer replied. “But I think we’re looking at whether or not the donors have potentially been deceived.”

“But that would be the subject of the deception, right?” Justice Coney Barrett asked. “I gather that you think the website might have made them think that this was an entity that provided abortion care as opposed to a pro-life entity, so that was the concern?”

“That’s right, Your Honor,” Iyre answered.

Aimee Huber, Executive Director of First Choice, called the move a “fishing expedition” and noted the state has the nation’s fifth-highest abortion rate. In a press call, Huber said, “Our state has done everything it could to make New Jersey a sanctuary state for abortion. Since pregnancy centers like ours do not perform or refer for abortions, we are targets for a government that disagrees with our views.”

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a suit on behalf of First Choice, calling Platkin’s subpoena “unlawful” and “unjust.” In the suit, ADF said Platkin “selectively targeted First Choice Women’s Resource Centers based on its religious speech and pro-life views with a wide-ranging, unfounded, and burdensome subpoena that requires the organization to expend its limited resources to produce extensive documentation or face judicial sanctions.”

A district court dismissed the suit in 2024, finding it lacked jurisdiction. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Platkin in 2024, and the ADF appealed to the Supreme Court.

Oral arguments were yesterday, and it appears the Supreme Court isn’t buying Platkin’s argument.

Here’s more from CNN:

A majority of the Supreme Court appeared skeptical Tuesday of New Jersey’s effort to subpoena donor information from “crisis pregnancy centers” without federal court review, fearing that the probe may have chilled the First Amendment rights of anti-abortion supporters.

The justices appeared likely to side with a religious nonprofit, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers – a decision that would allow the group to fight the state’s subpoena in federal court. Much of the roughly 90-minute oral argument focused on how far that decision might reach to similar subpoenas.

At a time when red and blue states are often pursuing radically different policies on abortion, immigration and LGBTQ rights, the religious nonprofit framed its inability to get into federal court as a threat to both liberal and conservative groups that could be targeted by state officials. Some justices also had that concern.

The implications of this case, not just for First Choice but for all Americans, cannot be understated. Plaktin is arguing he has the authority to harass a pro-life pregnancy center because it opposes abortion and provides non-abortion pregnancy care to women and families.

In an interview with EWTN, ADF’s Caleb Dalton laid out what this means.

“We think New Jersey had a bad day in court today, and rightly so. This case is about whether or not state officials can be held accountable when they harass their political and ideological opponents and weaponize the justice system against them,” Dalton said. 

“We’re hopeful that the court today, based on what we heard, we’re hopeful that they rule in favor of First Choice and allow them to have their day in court,” Dalton added.

Dalton also addressed the exchange between Justice Coney Barrett and Iyer. “First Choice is absolutely clear about what they do, and every donor that donates, there’s absolutely no evidence…Justice Thomas asked the Attorney General, ‘Have you ever received a complaint about this?’ and the answer was no,” Dalton said. 

“And just to make a point about the websites, that is absolutely disingenuous for the Attorney General to claim that there could be some sort of misinformation here,” Dalton said. “Because what we know is, first of all, First Choice is clear that they’re pro-life, but not only that, the Attorney General doesn’t need that donor information. If he truly thought there was something untoward going on, he actually doesn’t need that information. It’s an objective test, and he failed that test today.”

Given the targeted harassment aimed at pro-life pregnancy centers after the Dobbs ruling, First Choice and other pregnancy centers believe such fishing expeditions are meant to make private, anonymous donor information public so pro-abortion groups can target and intimidate donors, effectively cutting off revenue streams for pregnancy centers and the care they provide women.

“What the Attorney General is doing here is harassing First Choice Pregnancy Resource Centers that provides these resources to women in need, harassing them because they would like to provide women with the opportunity to choose life,” Dalton continued. “Evidence shows that when women have the type of resources that First Choice provides to them, they’re more likely to choose to keep their unborn child. And that’s what First Choice is there doing, and the Attorney General is harassing them simply because they hold a different ideological view than the Attorney General,” Dalton said.

This is a good and welcome development from the Supreme Court, and precedent is on the side of First Choice. In the 1950s and 60s, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the NAACP after southern states sought access to the organization’s donor records. In 2020, California did the same with charitable organizations in the state, only for the Supreme Court to smack the state down in that case, too.

In a November press call, ADF attorney Lincoln Wilson made it clear that First Choice, like the NAACP was protected by the First Amendment. “Because if you had their members identified,” Wilson said, “you could isolate the members and harm the organization’s mission. The U.S. Supreme Court said that’s protected information and states can’t get at that.”

It’s unlikely we’ll see a ruling in this case before the end of the Supreme Court’s current term, which runs through July 2026, but we’ll keep readers updated.

Editor’s Note: Every single day, here at Townhall, we will stand up and FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT against the radical left and deliver the conservative reporting our readers deserve.

Help us continue to tell the truth about the Trump administration and its successes. Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.