In a direct assault on religious freedom, New Jersey’s Attorney General demands pro-life organization First Choice Resource Centers reveal confidential donor identities, setting the stage for a high-stakes Supreme Court showdown.
Key Takeaways
- New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin has subpoenaed First Choice Resource Centers demanding donor names and addresses, allegedly to investigate potential consumer fraud violations.
- First Choice, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, argues the subpoena violates constitutional rights to free speech and association.
- The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, which could expand on their 2021 ruling protecting donor anonymity under the First Amendment.
- Critics contend the subpoena represents targeted harassment of a pro-life organization with no evidence of actual consumer complaints.
- The case highlights growing tensions between government oversight and religious freedom following the reversal of Roe v. Wade.
Government Overreach Targets Pro-Life Ministry
New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin has issued a subpoena demanding First Choice Resource Centers, a pro-life organization operating five locations throughout New Jersey, surrender the names and addresses of their donors. The attorney general claims the demand is necessary to investigate whether the organization misled donors or clients about health services they provide under the state’s Consumer Fraud Act. Despite this invasive request, there appear to be no actual complaints from consumers or evidence of harm caused by the organization’s practices.
First Choice has refused to comply with the November 2023 subpoena, which also requests information about medical providers and marketing materials. The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a conservative legal organization with a strong track record in religious freedom cases, has stepped in to represent First Choice. ADF argues that forcing the disclosure of donor information violates the organization’s First Amendment rights to free speech and association, particularly given the sensitive nature of the abortion debate and potential for donor harassment.
Constitutional Protections at Stake
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case follows a significant 2021 ruling in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, which protected donor anonymity for nonprofit organizations. The current case could further clarify and potentially strengthen these protections. Legal experts note that government demands for donor lists have historically been used to target organizations with unpopular political or religious views, making this case particularly important for religious freedom advocates.
“New Jersey’s attorney general is targeting First Choice — a ministry that provides parenting classes, free ultrasounds, baby clothes, and more to its community—simply because of its pro-life views,” attorney Erin Hawley said. “We are looking forward to presenting our case to the Supreme Court,” said Erin Hawley, Alliance Defending Freedom.
Matthew Platkin defends the subpoena by claiming that “identifying those donors would allow the state to determine if they were ultimately misled.” However, critics argue this circular reasoning represents a fishing expedition without probable cause. The absence of specific complaints from donors or clients raises serious questions about the true motives behind the investigation. The timing, following the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade, has further fueled suspicions of politically motivated targeting.
Precedents and Potential Consequences
This case echoes a 2018 Supreme Court victory for crisis pregnancy centers in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, where the Court struck down a California law requiring these centers to provide information about abortion services. Justice Kennedy’s concurrence in that case established important precedent for religious freedom in this context. The First Choice case could similarly define the boundaries between government regulatory power and constitutional protections for religious organizations.
“Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions. Freedom of speech secures freedom of thought and belief. This law imperils those liberties,” said Justice Kennedy, Supreme Court Justice.
The threat of exposing donors to harassment is not theoretical. During California’s Proposition 8 campaign regarding same-sex marriage, donors to traditional marriage causes faced significant backlash, including job loss and public shaming. The New York Times reported that one supporter received “many confrontational e-mail messages … one signed message blasted him for supporting the measure and was copied to a dozen of his colleagues and supervisors at the university.” Such examples highlight the real-world consequences of compromising donor privacy in contentious social issues.
A Battle for Religious Liberty
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments, the First Choice case represents more than a procedural dispute over a subpoena. It embodies the ongoing tension between government regulatory authority and constitutional protections for religious organizations. For conservative advocates, the case highlights what they see as increasing government hostility toward faith-based organizations that oppose abortion. The Court’s decision will likely have far-reaching implications for religious liberty, free speech, and the ability of nonprofit organizations to operate without fear of ideologically-motivated government intrusion.
Platkin has maintained that his investigation is about consumer protection, not ideology. “First Choice—a crisis pregnancy center operating in New Jersey—has for years refused to answer questions about their operations in New Jersey and the potential misrepresentations they have been making, including about reproductive healthcare,” Platkin said. “Nonprofits, including crisis pregnancy centers, may not deceive or defraud residents in our State, and we may exercise our traditional investigative authority to ensure that they are not doing so,” said Matthew Platkin, New Jersey Attorney General.
For supporters of First Choice, however, this case represents a critical stand against government overreach and a defense of their constitutional right to practice their faith through ministry without unwarranted intrusion. The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling will send a powerful message about the limits of government authority when investigating religious organizations in our increasingly polarized society.
