Pro-life pregnancy center takes donor privacy fight to Supreme Court amid clash with New Jersey Attorney General
MORRISTOWN, NJ — In a heated legal standoff making its way to the United States Supreme Court, a pro-life pregnancy center in New Jersey is refusing to comply with a subpoena demanding its private donor list, igniting a constitutional battle over free speech, privacy, and the scope of state power.
First Choice Women’s Resource Center, a Christian-based nonprofit that provides services for women with unplanned pregnancies, claims that the Office of the Attorney General—under Democrat Matthew Platkin—has targeted the organization over its pro-life stance. The group, which operates solely on private donations, argues that turning over its donor list violates its First Amendment right to anonymous association.
AG Matthew Platkin has stated his office will take every possible action to “facilitate unobstructed access to abortion services in New Jersey.” The Amici brief, relying on AG Platkin’s own statements and testimony from his confirmation hearing and before the Senate Budget Committee, seeks to inform SCOTUS that the weaponization of the OAG extends beyond pro-life pregnancy centers.
Backed by the Pacific Justice Institute and the New Jersey Family Policy Center, First Choice has garnered national attention as the case moves before the Supreme Court. A friend-of-the-court brief filed Thursday cites what it describes as a broader pattern of politically motivated enforcement actions by the AG’s office, including use of secretive investigations and alleged ideological targeting of faith-based groups.
The brief includes public statements by Platkin that have drawn scrutiny, including comments calling past Supreme Court rulings on gun rights “dangerous” and suggesting children are “hurt” by local school boards adopting parental rights policies. Citing this and other remarks, the brief contends that the attorney general has used his position to push a political agenda rather than enforce laws impartially.
The subpoena in question, issued in 2023, demanded internal communications and extensive records about donors supporting First Choice’s operations. According to Allan Wright of the New Jersey Family Policy Center, the request appears to single out pro-life nonprofits in a way that threatens both freedom of speech and association. He also criticized Platkin’s alignment with Planned Parenthood, arguing that such relationships raise concerns about political bias.
The case has now attracted national legal scrutiny as a potential bellwether for how government agencies interact with ideologically driven nonprofits. Supporters of First Choice argue that if the subpoena is upheld, it could chill donor support for politically or religiously controversial causes.
Karyn White, an attorney with the Pacific Justice Institute, warned that the situation underscores a larger concern about how unelected officials can use investigatory powers to intimidate private organizations. Her statement framed the case as a crucial test for constitutional protections and warned that the outcome could ripple far beyond New Jersey.
The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet set a date for oral arguments.
