Thomas Nukes NJ’s Pro-Life Center Lawfare With One Question

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas has often employed simple questions to underscore key factual points during oral arguments before the Supreme Court. And on Tuesday, he did just that.

The most recent example came during the high court’s hearing for First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin, which centers around New Jersey’s targeting of the state-based First Choice Women’s Resource Centers. As The Federalist previously reported, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, a Democrat, issued a sweeping subpoena to the pro-life organization seeking “years’ worth” of data, such as internal communications and details on First Choice donors. The subpoena was part of an investigation based on “concerns” that the group was misleading its donors.

First Choice filed a suit in federal court, alleging the subpoena sought to chill its First Amendment rights and “associations with donors.” The group ultimately appealed to SCOTUS after a federal district court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed its suit as “unripe.” Both lower courts argued that the matter couldn’t be examined in federal court due to ongoing state proceedings and the fact that First Choice had yet to be enforced.

[READ: Pro-Life Center Takes Its Fight Against Democrat Lawfare To The Supreme Court]

In his line of questioning to Platkin’s chief counsel, Sundeep Iyer, Thomas asked the defendant about the Democrat attorney general’s rationale for investigating First Choice to begin with. He specifically probed whether Platkin received “any complaints that formed the basis of [his] concern about the fundraising activities [by First Choice].”

Iyer seemingly attempted to skirt the senior justice’s question. He began by saying that they “certainly had complaints about crisis pregnancy centers,” but was cut off by Thomas, who more specifically asked about “this crisis pregnancy center.”

In a stunning admission, Iyer acknowledged that the New Jersey AG’s office hasn’t “had complaints about this specific [center],” claiming he “thinks” this was made “clear from the outset.” The answer prompted Thomas to interject and ask, “So, you had no basis to think that [First Choice was] deceiving any of their contributors?”

Iyer disagreed with Thomas’ summation and claimed that Platkin and his team “had carefully canvassed all of the public information that is provided on the website of First Choice in making a determination that we wanted to initiate an investigation.”

“But you had no factual basis?” Thomas asked, to which Iyer again disagreed.

“But you had no complainants?” Thomas more specifically asked.

“We had no complaints, but … state governments, [the] federal government initiate investigations all the time in the absence of complaints where they have a reason to suspect that there could be potential issues of legal compliance,” Iyer said. “It could be the case, based on our investigation, when we look at documents, when we look at information, that ultimately will determine that First Choice isn’t liable for any violations of the law.”

In his response, Thomas seemed unconvinced. The George H.W. Bush appointee noted that the state’s reasoning “seem[s] to be a burdensome way to find out whether someone has a confusing website.”

Circling back to Iyer’s disagreement with First Choice’s “characterization of why they were being put to this,” Thomas further noted that “it would seem that the obvious way to refute that was to say, ‘We had a hundred complaints.’ But you say you have no complaints; but rather you looked at the website and their materials, and you think it could’ve been misleading.”

“So, why is your characterization any better than theirs?” Thomas asked.

In his response, Iyer attempted to justify the state’s investigation by highlighting “four bucket[]” areas of concern. Platkin’s chief counsel was ultimately cut off by Thomas, who again asked, “But you had no complainants?”

“We had no complaints, but I think that, Your Honor, that goes at most to the merits. That doesn’t go to the standing analysis,” Iyer replied.

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