Overview of Weaponizing Government Against Pro-Lifers? Supreme Court Presses New Jersey
This episode of The Daily Wire’s Morning Wire covers the Supreme Court oral argument in First Choice Women’s Resource Center v. New Jersey (Attorney General Matt Platkin). Alliance Defending Freedom General Counsel Aaron Hawley — counsel for First Choice — explains the lawsuit alleging that New Jersey’s AG selectively targeted a pro‑life, Christian pregnancy center with a broad, intrusive subpoena (including 10 years of donor records) and a public “strike force”/consumer alert, despite no complaints about this specific center. The case raises constitutional questions about viewpoint discrimination, donor privacy, subpoena overreach, and whether federal courts remain an available forum to challenge state actions.
Key takeaways
- The core claim: New Jersey’s AG allegedly targeted First Choice because of its religious and pro‑life views, using enforcement tools (consumer alert, “strike force,” sweeping subpoena) without evidence of wrongdoing.
- The subpoena demanded extensive records including donor names and contact information going back a decade — which plaintiffs say chills donors’ First Amendment rights.
- Several justices appeared sympathetic to First Choice’s arguments during oral argument (notably Justices Barrett, Jackson, Kagan, and Thomas raised critical questions for the state).
- A major factual point cutting against the AG: he reportedly could not identify any actual complaints against First Choice that would justify the subpoena.
- Legal precedents invoked: Americans for Prosperity (donor information protection), Whole Woman’s Health (federal forum concerns), and the general availability of federal relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983 when state officials allegedly violate federal rights.
- Practical stakes: a ruling for First Choice could deter state officials from issuing retaliatory, overbroad subpoenas and other enforcement tactics aimed at pregnancy centers and similar organizations.
Topics discussed
- Facts of the First Choice case: subpoena scope, consumer alert, and “strike force.”
- Supreme Court oral argument highlights and how several justices framed the issues (chilling effect, lack of complaints, federal forum availability).
- Constitutional doctrines at play: First Amendment (free speech and associational privacy), viewpoint discrimination, overbroad/retaliatory subpoenas, and access to federal courts under §1983.
- Broader pattern: other states’ actions against pregnancy care centers (examples mentioned: New York, California, Washington) — subpoenas, regulatory actions, and litigation over counseling and information about abortion/medication.
- Resource and strategic burdens on nonprofits facing prolonged investigations (“process is part of the punishment”).
- ADF’s litigation posture and recent pro‑life legal momentum (citing other wins and circuit court decisions defending pregnancy centers’ speech).
Notable quotes & judicial lines of questioning
- Aaron Hawley: “Sometimes the process is part of the punishment” — describing the burden of long investigations on nonprofits.
- Justice Kagan (paraphrase): A subpoena demanding donor names will chill speech — “I don’t want my name and address and phone number out there.”
- Justice Thomas (line of questioning): Asked whether the AG had any complaints about First Choice — the state could not point to any specific complaints.
- Practical framing from the bench: concerns that a state could use subpoenas to shut out federal review and impose burdens without substantiation.
Legal context & precedents referenced
- Americans for Prosperity: protections for donor privacy under the First Amendment when states seek donor lists.
- Whole Woman’s Health: discussed for how federal forums are sometimes unavailable and the implications for constitutional claims (used by Justice Jackson to probe the state’s argument).
- 42 U.S.C. §1983: statutory route allowing federal court suits against state officials who violate constitutional rights — central to plaintiff’s argument that they should have access to federal review.
- Circuit court decisions: ADF’s recent circuit victories protecting pregnancy center speech (examples cited include Second Circuit wins).
Potential implications
- A ruling for First Choice could:
- Reinforce donor privacy protections and limit states’ ability to demand donor lists in the absence of concrete evidence of wrongdoing.
- Discourage state attorneys general from issuing viewpoint‑driven subpoenas, consumer alerts, or investigations that target organizations based on ideology.
- Clarify when and how federal courts can hear constitutional challenges to state subpoenas and enforcement tactics.
- A ruling for New Jersey could broaden state investigatory powers and make it harder for targeted organizations to obtain federal relief.
Practical next steps / recommendations (for affected organizations and observers)
- For pregnancy centers and similar nonprofits:
- Preserve records and document any interactions with state officials.
- Seek prompt legal counsel when facing subpoenas or public enforcement campaigns.
- Consider asserting First Amendment associational privacy and §1983 claims to secure federal review.
- For observers and policymakers:
- Monitor the Supreme Court’s decision for its broader free‑speech and donor‑privacy implications.
- Recognize the resource burden of prolonged investigations on small nonprofits and the potential chilling effects on civic association.
Bottom line
The case centers on whether a state attorney general can use regulatory tools — public warnings, strike forces, and sweeping subpoenas — to target organizations for their viewpoint without evidence. Oral argument revealed skepticism from several justices about New Jersey’s approach, particularly when no complaints about First Choice were identified. The Supreme Court’s decision could set an important precedent on donor privacy, viewpoint discrimination, and the availability of federal judicial relief when state officials take aggressive investigatory steps.