In First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Platkin, the New Jersey-based clinic says the state's attorney general, Matthew Platkin (D), has been unlawfully targeting and harassing the ministry that provides parenting classes, free ultrasounds, baby clothes, and more to the communities of its five locations across the state.

"He's had a campaign to target pregnancy centers with intrusive subpoenas. He has demanded that First Choice turn over 5,000 names of its donors," reports Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorney Lincoln Wilson. "He actually asked Planned Parenthood for help on how to come up with his theory against First Choice," that it misled people into thinking its services included referrals for abortion.
Wilson calls that a violation of the First Amendment, which protects donor identities from unjustified disclosure and prohibits a state official from retaliating against speech with which he disagrees.
ADF says that is a matter that should be heard in federal court.
"Unfortunately, what the lower courts have said in this case is that First Choice has to go to the state courts of New Jersey … before it's allowed to go to federal court," Wilson relays. "We think that's against the Constitution; we think that's against the rights we have to go to federal court, and we're hoping that the Supreme Court sees it the same way."
First Choice believes attorneys general on both sides of the political aisle have been misusing investigative authority since abortion restrictions have been left up to the states, and defendants must be able to challenge their demands in federal court.
Wilson says this case matters not just for pregnancy centers, but for anyone who might be the target of politicized investigations, which are becoming more and more common.
"There was a campaign of 17 state attorneys general in blue states working to discriminate against pro-life pregnancy centers and wanting to investigate them, just like the New Jersey attorney general has," the attorney notes. "So, this matters especially in those states, but it also matters for anyone else who's just trying to go about their business and exercise their rights and who could be the victim of a campaign of harassment by one of these attorneys general."
Platkin had urged the justices to pass on the case, saying the organization has long refused to answer questions about its operations and potential misrepresentations about reproductive healthcare.
"First Choice is looking for a special exception from the usual procedural rules as it tries to avoid complying with an entirely lawful state subpoena," he said Monday when the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. "No industry is entitled to that type of special treatment — period."
ADF has already helped Washington state's attorney general see the error of his ways on this, and the Christian legal defense organization has looked forward to correcting the issue in New York, California, and New Jersey.
The high court will hear the case in the term that begins in October. A date for oral argument has not been scheduled.