The U.S. Supreme Court plans to hear the case of a Christian pregnancy center seeking First Amendment relief from an investigation by the State of New Jersey. First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, an ECFA member, is challenging a lower court ruling that it cannot yet receive federal protection from a state subpoena, even though it can reasonably show the state’s demands are an affront to the ministry’s associations with donors and its free speech.

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, a number of state officials, including New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, publicly promised to facilitate access to abortion. Platkin specifically led his team in the release of a consumer alert about pregnancy centers that, according to the state, “are organizations that seek to prevent individuals from accessing abortion care, sometimes by providing false or misleading information about the safety and legality of abortion.” In that context, Platkin authorized a sweeping subpoena to First Choice demanding sensitive and confidential documents, including mounds of identifying information about the ministry’s donors.

Earlier this year, First Choice Executive Director Aimee Huber said Platkin has “a personal and political vendetta” against pregnancy centers and “has stopped at nothing to frustrate the important work we do—work that has made a tangible, life-and-death difference for tens of thousands of New Jersey women and their children.”

“The government can’t harass those who support pro-life ministries just because it disagrees with their message,” she added. 

First Choice, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, has had to elevate this case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court because, so far, lower courts have said it was not ripe for federal review, instead relegating First Choice’s constitutional rights case to New Jersey courts. ADF disagrees with those rulings.

“First Choice’s federal claims are ripe without state adjudication because First Choice suffered an Article III injury the moment the attorney general issued the subpoena,” ADF declared in a brief to the high court. “His demand for donor disclosure objectively chills First Choice’s associational and speech rights, causing its donors to think twice before supporting the faith-based nonprofit."

A number of organizations have sided with First Choice in this case, including some not always ideologically aligned with pro-life ministries. The ACLU, for example, joined a brief stating that “a subpoena seeking sensitive donor information can chill a disfavored speaker’s protected associations long before it’s ever enforced…. if, as First Choice alleges here, an attorney general is using the subpoena power to chill speech that he could not constitutionally silence otherwise, plaintiffs can sue to stop that misuse of power.”

Also supporting First Choice’s position is the U.S. government, which told the justices this case is “simple” and “straightforward.” It added that the lower court ruling denying the opportunity for federal relief would essentially set up a trap – “Sue in federal court before a state court orders enforcement, and the suit is unripe; sue after, and the suit is precluded.”

The oral argument for this case has been set for December 2 at the Supreme Court. The ECFA team is monitoring this court battle and praying for victory for First Choice’s First Amendment freedoms.