New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin is taking a bold step by challenging a pro-life crisis pregnancy center in his state. The center, First Choice Resource Centers, offers various services, including parenting classes and free ultrasounds. Platkin claims that the center is misleading donors and clients about the health services it provides. In November 2023, he issued a subpoena demanding the names and addresses of the center’s donors.
This case has now reached the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear it on June 16, 2025. First Choice is fighting back, arguing that the subpoena violates their constitutional rights. They have enlisted the help of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a Christian law firm known for successfully handling free speech cases. ADF has previously won significant cases regarding crisis pregnancy centers, including a 2018 ruling that blocked California from forcing these centers to provide information about abortion.
Platkin’s concerns center around whether donors and clients were misled about the services offered by First Choice. He believes that identifying these donors could help determine if any deception occurred. However, critics argue that there is no evidence of wrongdoing and that Platkin’s actions appear to be an attempt to expose donors to potential harassment.
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case could set a significant precedent. In a 2021 ruling, the Court denied California’s request to require charities to disclose major donors’ identities, citing First Amendment protections. However, the Court did leave room for "targeted subpoenas," which Platkin is trying to use in this situation.
If the court sides with Platkin, it could open the door for government officials to access donor information for various causes, including those related to gun control and LGBTQ rights. Critics warn that this could lead to a chilling effect on free speech, as donors might fear harassment if their identities are made public.
The issue of donor privacy has been contentious, particularly following incidents where supporters of certain political measures faced backlash after their information was leaked. Past cases, like the aftermath of California’s Proposition 8 vote, highlight the potential dangers of publicizing donor identities.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear this case, many are watching closely. The outcome could have lasting implications for donor privacy and the rights of organizations to operate without fear of government intrusion.
