Did the state of New Jersey really try to force a Christian pregnancy center to hand over a decade’s worth of documents, including its donor list, without charging them with any crime?
Yes — and now that case is heading to the Supreme Court.
At the heart of the matter is First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a pro-life nonprofit with five locations across New Jersey. Since 1985, they’ve offered free services to pregnant women, including ultrasounds, parenting classes, baby clothes, and counseling for women who may be unsure about their pregnancy. The center does not perform or refer for abortions, which makes it a target in a state where abortion is not only legal but celebrated.
In November 2023, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin issued a sweeping subpoena to First Choice. He demanded ten years of records, including internal communications, staff information, promotional materials, and — most concerning to civil liberty advocates — the names of donors who support the center’s mission. That’s a huge ask, especially for a small nonprofit trying to serve women in crisis.
The reason for the subpoena? Platkin said he was investigating possible “misrepresentations” made by the center, especially around something called abortion pill reversal — a process where a woman who takes the first abortion pill (mifepristone) but changes her mind can take progesterone to possibly stop the abortion. The method is controversial, but it has been used for years, and some pro-life medical groups say it works and is safe.
But here’s the kicker: Platkin didn’t accuse First Choice of breaking any laws. There were no specific claims, no lawsuits, and no court order forcing compliance. Just a heavy-handed subpoena and a vague suggestion that something might be wrong. That’s what led First Choice to sue.
The center, backed by legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, argued that the subpoena was not just overreach — it was unconstitutional. They say forcing them to reveal their donors and internal documents violates their right to association and free speech under the First Amendment. And they believe the government is targeting them simply because they don’t support abortion.
First Choice tried to get help from lower courts, but both the district court and appeals court refused to step in. That’s when the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take the case. The justices won’t rule on the full merits of the subpoena — at least not yet. Instead, they’ll answer one key question: Can First Choice challenge this kind of subpoena in federal court before a state court forces them to comply?
In other words, does a group have the right to fight back early — before being dragged through a state-level enforcement action?
Attorney Lincoln Wilson, who is representing First Choice, said it best: “If the government can just go ahead on a pretextual theory and demand that you turn over the names of your donors, then everyone in this country is less free.”
That’s a concern that reaches far beyond New Jersey or the abortion debate. Imagine if a Republican attorney general tried to make a left-leaning nonprofit hand over all of its internal files and donor names, just because they didn’t like what the group stood for. People would be outraged — and rightfully so.
Even the Trump administration’s Justice Department has stepped in, filing a legal brief in support of First Choice. They argue that the pregnancy center has every right to challenge the subpoena in federal court now, rather than waiting for state courts to act.
This case could have a lasting impact on how the government treats nonprofit organizations, especially those in politically charged areas like abortion. It’s also a test of whether states can use their power to intimidate groups that disagree with the ruling class.
In New Jersey, where abortion is protected by the state constitution and promoted by the government, offering women an alternative has become a dangerous act. As Aimee Huber, the executive director of First Choice, put it: “If our attorney general can bully us, it can happen in other states that promote abortion.”
The Supreme Court will hear the case on December 2. And no matter where you stand on the issue of abortion, one thing is clear — this is about more than just one pregnancy center. It’s about whether the government gets to silence groups it doesn’t like.