First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin

Case Description

Pro-life pregnancy centers exist to help women (and men) facing unplanned pregnancies. Rather than encourage them to abort their children, these centers offer alternatives that preserve the lives of both mothers and their children.

First Choice Women’s Resource Centers has been providing services to pregnant women since 1985. As a Christian nonprofit, First Choice believes that life is crafted by God and begins at conception. The organization exists to give women the information and resources they need to make life-affirming decisions for themselves and their unborn children. It provides a variety of services such as pregnancy testing, ultrasounds, parenting education, and material support including baby clothes and diapers. First Choice also counsels both men and women facing unplanned pregnancies to guide them through the situation and help them take control of their lives.

In February 2022, pro-abortion New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy appointed Matthew Platkin as the state attorney general. Platkin has been vocal about his support for abortion, referring to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization as an “extreme right-wing decision” and a “devastating setback for women’s rights in America” and instituting a $5 million grant program to fund abortion training and expand the pool of abortion providers in New Jersey. Platkin has also expressed hostility toward groups that disagree with him about abortion, calling pro-life groups “extremists attempting to stop those from seeking reproductive healthcare that they need.” And without citing any evidence, he issued a statewide “consumer alert” declaring that pro-life pregnancy centers like First Choice “provide false or misleading information[.]”

In November 2023, Attorney General Platkin served First Choice with a subpoena because of his purported concerns that First Choice was misleading donors about its health services, as well as some of the medical claims on its website. The subpoena demands First Choice identify—by name—the donors behind nearly 5,000 donations and produce more than 10 years’ worth of documents including information provided to clients and donors, documents identifying personnel, copies of every First Choice solicitation and advertisement, and information related to outside organizations with which it works. The subpoena failed to cite any complaints or evidence that First Choice had violated New Jersey law.

First Choice tried to challenge the subpoena in federal court, but the AG responded by filing his own lawsuit in state court, which ruled that First Choice must pursue its federal claims in state court first. First Choice filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to review the case and hold that civil rights plaintiffs do not need to litigate challenges to state investigations in state court before they can bring federal claims—the same standard that applies to any other person suffering constitutional injury at the hands of a state official.

In February, Christian Legal Society filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the First Choice case. The brief argues the New Jersey AG’s abusive use of state subpoenas to harass small, nonprofit and religious pro-life organizations are without reasonable cause; chill their First Amendment speech and association rights, including through potentially exposing donor lists; and burden them with significant costs and time that detract from carrying out their mission. It also discusses the constitutional issues in play. If the New Jersey AG wins, then any state AG can selectively use its investigative tools against groups it disfavors, siphoning off their resources and effectively silencing them. The result is that state AGs could freely harass targets without triggering federal constitutional review, thereby depriving the disfavored organizations of a way to defend against the burdening of their free exercise rights. Such targeting raises important federal constitutional questions, but federal courts—where judges typically have more expertise in deciding issues related to free exercise of religion and expressive association—may never get to hear them.

This case is very important to CLS’ own clients, Gateway Pregnancy Center of New Jersey, which currently holds a similarly abusive subpoena from the same AG, and Bridge of Hope Mobile Pregnancy Center. While there are some differences in the cases, the First Choice case may directly impact the legal outcome for CLS’ clients as well.

On June 16, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to determine whether First Choice can challenge the subpoena in federal court under Section 1983 of the 1871 Civil Rights Act or whether the group must first wait until the subpoena is enforced by a state court.