The Supreme Court Signals Concern Over Government Targeting of Pro-Life Groups
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, a case poised to shape the future of First Amendment protections for pro-life ministries nationwide.
At issue is an aggressive investigative subpoena issued by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin against First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a Christian nonprofit that offers alternatives to abortion. Without offering evidence, Platkin’s office accused First Choice of providing “false and misleading information” and demanded a decade’s worth of sensitive records—including donor lists, personnel files, internal communications, and all advertising related to Abortion Pill Reversal (APR).
First Choice, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, argues the subpoena was a politically motivated attempt to intimidate a viewpoint the state opposes. The question before the Court is both technical and consequential: Must a pro-life ministry first fight the subpoena in state court, or can it seek immediate federal protection when its First Amendment freedoms are chilled?
The Court is expected to rule by June 2026.
Justices Question State’s Motives—and the Chilling of Donor Rights
Throughout the arguments, several Justices zeroed in on the chilling effect New Jersey’s demands could have on donors and supporters—many of whom give quietly to avoid harassment.
Justice Elena Kagan put it bluntly:
“I’m an ordinary person… and I’m fearful of that. I don’t want my name being given.”
Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed New Jersey on why it needed donor information at all, with Thomas remarking the state’s theory was a “burdensome way” to investigate alleged website confusion.
Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, and Justice Neil Gorsuch all explored whether the subpoena itself, even before enforcement, suppresses protected speech and association.
Counsel Erin Hawley, arguing for First Choice, noted that the Court has “long safeguarded” donor lists—reminding the Justices that even an unenforced threat can pressure supporters into silence.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh highlighted an amicus brief from the ACLU affirming a key principle:
“A speaker is not obligated to wait for formal enforcement before challenging the constitutionality of state action.”
The ACLU’s support underscored a rare cross-ideological agreement: compelled disclosure of donor identities is dangerous, no matter who is targeted.
Following oral arguments, Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver condemned the sweeping demands from New Jersey’s Attorney General:
“The government has no business harassing pro-life ministries and its supporters because it disagrees with their pro-life cause.”
He emphasized the lack of evidence against First Choice and the state’s failure to demonstrate a compelling need for invasive disclosure.
Why This Matters
1. A Precedent That Could Affect Every Pro-Life Ministry.
If New Jersey succeeds, any state could use administrative subpoenas to harass, intimidate, or financially cripple pro-life centers—without ever proving wrongdoing.
2. Donor Privacy Is on the Line.
For decades, the Supreme Court has protected anonymous donations to nonprofit groups. Breaking this safeguard would expose churches, ministries, and pro-life supporters to backlash, threats, and doxxing.
3. A Test of Government Neutrality.
This case raises a foundational question: Can the government target organizations simply because it dislikes their religious or political beliefs?
4. A Signal to States Nationwide.
A strong ruling for First Choice would send a nationwide message: states cannot weaponize investigations to silence disfavored viewpoints.
Faith Perspective
At its core, this case is about whether Christian ministries can faithfully serve women and families without fear of government overreach.
Scripture calls believers to “rescue those being led away to death” (Proverbs 24:11) and to defend the vulnerable. Pregnancy resource centers stand in that gap every day, offering support, counseling, prayer, and practical help to women in crisis.
A ruling protecting First Choice would affirm that faith-based compassion is not a crime, and that ministries serving life and hope should not be subjected to government intimidation because of their biblical convictions.
