Pro-Life Center Takes Its Fight Against Dem Lawfare To SCOTUS

A pro-life pregnancy center is gearing up to fight back against New Jersey Democrats’ lawfare at the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court early next month.

“Our state has done everything they could to make New Jersey a sanctuary state for abortion. Since pregnancy centers like ours do not perform or refer for abortions, we are targets for a government that disagrees with our views,” First Choice Women’s Resource Centers Executive Director Aimee Huber said during a Thursday press conference. “If our attorney general can bully us, it can happen in other states that promote abortion. It’s our hope that our efforts will result in protection for pregnancy centers across the nation.”

Set to be argued before SCOTUS on Dec. 2, the case known as First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin first came to fruition in 2023 when New Jersey’s Division of Consumer Affairs began investigating First Choice over allegations that the pro-life group downplayed its mission and misled clients and donors about its services. The seemingly political inquiry ultimately resulted in Democrat Attorney General Matthew Platkin issuing a subpoena to the organization for “years’ worth” of data, such as internal communications and details on First Choice donors.

First Choice pushed back on the subpoena, claiming that it violated its constitutional rights and later challenging its legality in federal court. A federal district court and the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed First Choice’s suit as “unripe,” arguing that the matter can’t be examined in federal court due to ongoing state proceedings and the fact that the subpoena had yet to be enforced.

The Supreme Court agreed to take up the case in June 2025. According to Oyez, the justices will address the question of, “When the recipient of a state investigatory subpoena demonstrates an objectively reasonable chill of its First Amendment rights, does a federal court lack jurisdiction to hear the case because those constitutional claims must first be resolved in state court?”

Thursday’s press conference featured remarks from Lincoln Wilson, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing First Choice in the case.

While addressing attendees, Wilson pushed back against Platkin’s “theory” that the pregnancy center is deceiving its clients and donors. He specifically highlighted how the Democrat attorney general has been “overtly hostile to the mission of pregnancy centers,” and pointed to a 2022 consumer alert “against pregnancy centers.”

“This is exactly the sort of thing where it’s properly read and understood as [an] attempt for him to harass and persecute First Choice for its protected speech and get its donors to stop supporting it,” Wilson said.

The ADF attorney referenced several past SCOTUS decisions that he said demonstrates that New Jersey’s alleged chilling of First Choice’s speech is the type of constitutional infringement that “the U.S. Supreme Court has been concerned about for a long time.” Among them is the 2021 Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta ruling, in which the court, according to Oyez, found (6-3) that California’s policy of requiring charities to disclose the identities of their major donors is unlawful because it “burdens donors’ First Amendment rights and is not narrowly tailored to an important government interest.”

“We think the same thing is going on here with the [New Jersey] attorney general’s subpoena and his attempt to get that information from First Choice, and we have a right to address those grievances and claims in federal court,” Wilson said. “That’s an issue that matters not just to First Choice; it matters to pregnancy centers around the country.”

Thursday’s presser also included testimony from a First Choice client named Meera. The candid mother of several children spoke about the positive experiences she’s had during her time engaging with the organization, which she credited with assisting her in overcoming difficult challenges throughout motherhood.

“First Choice is just my guiding light. It saved me … when I really needed them,” Meera said.

In response to a question from a reporter about the potential outcome of the case, Wilson predicted that, if the justices agree that First Choice can bring its suit in federal court, the most likely result would be that the case would be “a remand and the district court would consider the constitutional claims that it’s so far refused to decide.” He also raised the possibility of a justice issuing a concurring opinion that weighs “in on some of those issues that are part of the record” but added “that’s not the issue that we’re focusing on right now.”

“The main focus is just our right to be heard,” Wilson said.

Oral arguments in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin are slated to begin at 10 a.m. ET on Tuesday, Dec. 2.

Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood