The Supreme Court on Monday granted a faith-based pregnancy nonprofit's request to review its case against the New Jersey attorney general in which it alleged he violated the nonprofit's free speech rights.
The case was brought by First Choice Women's Resource Centers, a group of five Christian-based centers that provide services to women facing unplanned pregnancies.
The nonprofit was subpoenaed by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who sought records over allegations the pregnancy centers might be misleading women about offering abortion services.
MICHELLE OBAMA FACING BACKLASH OVER CLAIM ABOUT WOMEN'S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH
First Choice challenged the subpoena in federal court, asserting it infringed upon its First Amendment rights by potentially chilling its free speech. A lower court rejected the nonprofit's case, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld that decision.
The Supreme Court will now take up the case and examine whether Platkin's investigatory demand must first be adjudicated in state court or if the federal court has jurisdiction over the matter.
Platkin "has made no secret of his hostility towards pregnancy centers," First Choice attorneys wrote in their petition to the Supreme Court, arguing the attorney general teamed up with Planned Parenthood, a competitor and prolific abortion provider, to target resource centers that oppose abortion.
First Choice called Platkin's subpoena "invasive," noting it demanded thousands of the nonprofit's donor records.
ANTI-ABORTION PROVIDER MEASURE IN TRUMP'S 'BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL' COULD SPARK GOP REBELLION
Platkin argued the case was not ripe for federal court review, in part, because the subpoena he issued to First Choice has yet to be enforced in state court.
He also said that the donor information he sought was far more narrow than what First Choice claimed. Platkin said he only sought identities of donors who donated through two websites, saying he was concerned First Choice could have misled those donors into thinking the nonprofit provided certain reproductive services that it actually did not provide.
Oral arguments in the case will be held in October 2025.
