Supreme Court Rules 9-0 for New Jersey Pro-Life Pregnancy Center

Pro-life pregnancy centers exist to help women facing unplanned pregnancies. Rather than encourage them to abort their children like Planned Parenthood does, these centers offer alternatives that preserve the lives of both mothers and their children.

But from Washington state to New York, pro-abortion government officials have been targeting pregnancy centers because they disagree with the centers’ pro-life views. In New Jersey, that targeting came in the form of a coercive subpoena.

Caring for pregnant women

First Choice Women’s Resource Centers has been providing services to pregnant women since 1985. The organization exists to give women the information and resources they need to make life-affirming decisions for themselves and their unborn children. First Choice also provides counsel for both men and women facing unplanned pregnancies to guide them through the situation and help them take control of their lives.

First Choice operates five locations in New Jersey and offers services free of charge. In its nearly 40 years of operation, it has served over 36,000 women facing unplanned pregnancies.

First Choice provides a variety of services such as pregnancy testing, counseling, ultrasounds, parenting education, material support, including baby clothes and diapers, and more. It is also a nationally leading organization for abortion pill reversal (APR), a service available for pregnant women who have taken only the first drug in the two-step abortion drug regimen.

As a Christian nonprofit, First Choice believes that life is crafted by God and begins at conception. All of First Choice’s employees, board members, and volunteers must adhere to a statement of faith, which includes a commitment to protect and honor life in all stages of development.

New Jersey’s hostile attorney general

In February 2022, pro-abortion New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy appointed Matthew Platkin as his attorney general. Like Gov. Murphy, former Attorney General Platkin has been vocal about his support for abortion. He referred to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization as an “extreme right-wing decision” and a “devastating setback for women’s rights in America,” and he instituted a $5 million grant program to fund abortion training and expand the pool of abortion providers in New Jersey.

Then-Attorney General Platkin (who has since been replaced by Attorney General Jennifer Davenport) has also been vocal about his hostility toward groups that disagree with him about abortion. He has referred to pro-life groups as “extremists attempting to stop those from seeking reproductive healthcare that they need.” And without citing any evidence, he issued a statewide “consumer alert” declaring that pro-life pregnancy centers like First Choice “provide false or misleading information[.]” Not only that, but he asked Planned Parenthood to help him write it.

An unfounded subpoena

In November 2023, former Attorney General Platkin issued a subpoena to First Choice. He demanded the organization turn over 10 years’ worth of documents, including its statements on APR, information provided to clients and donors, documents identifying personnel, copies of every First Choice solicitation and advertisement, and information related to outside organizations it works with.

New Jersey did not cite any complaints or evidence that First Choice had violated New Jersey law. Rather, it targeted First Choice because of its religious and pro-life views.

First Choice has struggled to maintain full staffing since the COVID-19 pandemic, and if it were to comply with New Jersey’s unlawful subpoena, the nonprofit would be unable to focus on its mission of helping pregnant women. First Choice estimates that it would take several staff members—including the executive director, the volunteer medical director, the finance department, and all medical staff—at least an entire month to produce all the requested documents.

In addition, First Choice needs to maintain donor anonymity because many of its donors give for personal or faith-based reasons. If the organization were required to reveal a list of supporters, contributions would likely drop off as potential supporters feared retaliation for giving. Similarly, many employees and allied organizations would likely fear retaliation if their relationships with First Choice were made public, and some may choose to leave for that reason.

Challenging the attorney general’s demands

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys challenged the unlawful subpoena on First Choice’s behalf in December 2023. The attorney general’s demands are unlawful for several reasons, and ADF is seeking to protect the freedom of First Choice and other pregnancy centers like it to operate according to their beliefs.

To begin, the First Amendment prohibits government officials from retaliating against Americans for speaking out. First Choice engaged in constitutionally protected speech by advocating for its pro-life mission, but New Jersey issued a subpoena meant to chill that speech without citing any other compelling reason.

Next, the First and 14th Amendments protect First Choice from viewpoint discrimination. By targeting only pro-life groups and not organizations that advocate for abortion, New Jersey is unlawfully discriminating against First Choice because of its pro-life viewpoint.

In addition, the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment protects the rights of Americans to practice their religion without unlawful interference by government officials. By issuing an unfounded subpoena against First Choice while ignoring misleading statements posted by Planned Parenthood, New Jersey is treating a religious organization worse than others because of its beliefs. That is a clear First Amendment violation.

Plus, by demanding that First Choice reveal the identities of and communications with its employees, donors, and allied organizations, New Jersey is violating the First Amendment’s protection of free association. Government officials cannot punish Americans because they choose to associate with others to express a message.

ADF attorneys filed a federal lawsuit challenging this targeting of First Choice, but New Jersey responded by filing its own lawsuit in state court. After lower federal courts wrongly ruled that First Choice had to pursue its claims in state court before pursuing them in federal court, First Choice asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case and hold that civil rights plaintiffs do not need to litigate challenges to state investigations in state court before they can bring federal claims.

Praise God, after hearing oral arguments in December 2025, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of First Choice in April 2026. In a 9-0 opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch explained:

“Since the 1950s, this Court has confronted one official demand after another like the Attorney General’s. Over and again, we have held those demands burden the exercise of First Amendment rights. Disputing none of these precedents but seeking ways around them, the Attorney General has offered a variety of arguments. Some are old, some are new, but none succeeds.”

The ruling allows First Choice to pursue its constitutional claims against New Jersey officials in federal court.

The bottom line

State officials who harass pro-life groups and their donors by demanding private donor information will be held accountable in federal court. Everyone should be free to support the causes they care about without fear of being punished by hostile government officials.

First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Davenport

• November 2023: Attorney General Platkin issued an unlawful subpoena demanding that First Choice turn over 10 years’ worth of documents including its statements on abortion pill reversal, information it provided to clients and donors, documents identifying personnel, copies of every First Choice solicitation and advertisement, and information related to outside organizations that First Choice works with.
• December 2023: ADF attorneys filed a lawsuit challenging the unjust subpoena.
• January 2024: The district court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, and First Choice appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.
• February 2024: ADF attorneys filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to act swiftly by requiring a federal district court to do its duty and hear the case. The U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition.
• May 2024: ADF attorneys participated in oral argument in state court on the enforceability of the attorney general’s subpoena. The state court held the subpoena enforceable as a matter of state law and declined to rule on First Choice’s federal constitutional objections, which it said were unripe. First Choice appealed.
• July 2024: The 3rd Circuit remanded First Choice’s federal case to the district court for a decision on injunctive relief.
• September 2024: ADF attorneys participated in oral argument at state court, asking the court to pause further compliance with the subpoena while a federal court considers the constitutional claims in the case. First Choice had already responded to the subpoena by producing documents. The state court declined to rule on the merits of motions by First Choice or the attorney general while First Choice’s appeal is pending.
• October 2024: ADF attorneys participated in oral argument at a federal district court, asking the court to halt Attorney General Platkin’s harassment of First Choice.
• November 2024: After receiving an unfavorable ruling from the district court, ADF attorneys appealed to the 3rd Circuit.
• December 2024: The 3rd Circuit ruled against First Choice.
• January 2025: ADF attorneys asked the U.S. Supreme Court to recognize First Choice’s right to file a federal lawsuit against Attorney General Platkin.
• June 2025: The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
• December 2025: ADF Senior Counsel Erin Hawley presents oral arguments for the Supreme Court.
• April 2026: In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of First Choice and reversed the district court’s ruling, affirming that First Choice has a right to bring its claims in federal court.