On December 2, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments that will determine whether state officials can weaponize investigations to silence ministries they oppose. Justices across the spectrum expressed deep skepticism about New Jersey’s tactics.
The question:
Can the government force organizations to expose their supporters to harassment simply because they hold unpopular views? Must citizens violate the law and risk contempt before challenging government overreach?
At stake: Whether pregnancy centers—ministries serving 36,000+ women in New Jersey—can operate without officials demanding every donor’s name.
The Case: Investigation or Intimidation?
In November 2023, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin issued a subpoena to First Choice Women’s Resource Centers—five faith-based pregnancy centers across the state.
He demanded:
- Names of ~5,000 donors (including church baby-bottle campaigns)
- Ten years of internal documents
- All statements about Abortion Pill Reversal
- Every advertisement ever produced
- Information on every partner organization
No allegations of wrongdoing. No complaints from harmed women. No evidence of fraud. Just a sweeping demand for everything—especially donor identities.
First Choice refused and sued in federal court. The subpoena violated First Amendment rights to free speech and association. Forcing donor disclosure would create a “chilling effect”—donors would stop giving out of fear.
The pattern was clear: Platkin called pregnancy centers “extremists,” issued a statewide consumer alert (drafted with Planned Parenthood), and now demanded donor lists.
Both federal district and appeals courts dismissed the case. Their reasoning? The subpoena wasn’t “self-executing”—the AG would need a state court order before imposing sanctions. Therefore, not “ripe” for federal review. First Choice must wait until held in contempt before challenging.
That procedural trap is what SCOTUS agreed to review.
What the Justices Said
The December 2 oral arguments revealed widespread skepticism about forcing First Choice through years of state litigation.
Justice Thomas: “This seems to be a burdensome way to find out if someone has a confusing website.”
Justice Barrett: “Why does the Attorney General need donor information at all?” The state claimed it needed to “protect” donors from being “misled”—but donors choose causes they support. They’re free to stop giving. The expansion of state power troubled multiple justices.
Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch: All explored whether the subpoena itself—before enforcement—creates immediate First Amendment injury. If donors know the government wants their names, and that information could be disclosed, contributions stop. That’s a “chilling effect.”
Justice Kagan and Justice Kavanaugh: Emphasized “common sense.” What would “an ordinary person” think learning the state wants to know who supports a controversial ministry? The First Amendment protects anonymous donation—a principle recognized since 1958.
New Jersey’s attorney struggled. He conceded that a “self-executing” subpoena would create standing. But he argued that requiring separate state court enforcement made First Choice’s injury “speculative.”
Justices didn’t buy it. The harm isn’t just final sanctions—it’s the ongoing investigation, the chilling effect, the compliance burden, and years of state litigation before reaching federal court.
U.S. Solicitor General (supporting First Choice): Section 1983 exists precisely so citizens don’t have to violate the law before challenging unconstitutional action. Otherwise, the impossible choice: surrender your rights or face escalating sanctions.
Platkin’s Campaign Against Pregnancy Centers
July 2022: Immediately after Dobbs overturned Roe, Platkin created a “Reproductive Rights Strike Force” to facilitate abortion access and target opponents.
December 2022: His office issued a “consumer alert” (drafted with Planned Parenthood) claiming pregnancy centers “do NOT provide abortion care” and “may not even provide any health care at all.” It accused centers of “false or misleading information.”
Sweeping allegations. Zero evidence. No specific complaints. No documented harm. Just blanket accusations painting every pregnancy center as deceptive.
Platkin’s pattern:
- Publicly called pregnancy centers “extremists”
- Coordinated with Planned Parenthood
- Announced $5 million for abortion training—while investigating pro-life centers
- Issued consumer alert warning people away
- Demanded donor lists
This isn’t consumer protection. It’s viewpoint discrimination as law enforcement.
What First Choice Actually Does
First Choice has served 36,000+ women since 1985. Five locations. All services free.
Medical:
- Pregnancy tests (99% accurate)
- Ultrasounds (licensed medical director)
- STD/STI testing and treatment
- Abortion Pill Reversal information
Material:
- Baby clothes and diapers (daily)
- Maternity clothes, formula, cribs, car seats
- Parenting classes, breastfeeding support
Emotional/Spiritual:
- Options counseling (all choices: parenting, adoption, abortion info)
- Post-abortion recovery
- Support groups, mentorship
First Choice doesn’t perform or refer for abortions—that’s not their mission. They help women facing unplanned pregnancies with information, resources, and support. They serve women regardless of their ultimate decision.
Entirely donor-supported. No government funding. Churches, individual donors, volunteers. Every staff member signs a statement of faith: commitment to serving women and upholding dignity of every person from conception to natural death.
One woman, “Meera,” moved to New Jersey pregnant, no insurance, no family, two young children. First Choice provided ultrasounds, parenting classes, material support. “First Choice is my guiding light,” she said. “They saved me when I really needed them.”
That’s what Platkin is targeting. A ministry that’s served 36,000 women. Millions in free services. Help for mothers with nowhere else to turn.
The Constitutional Stakes
Three doctrines matter most.
1. Donor Privacy (NAACP v. Alabama, 1958)
In 1958, Alabama’s segregationist Attorney General demanded NAACP membership lists—intending to expose members to KKK intimidation and violence. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled this violated the First Amendment.
Justice Harlan: “Compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may constitute an effective restraint on freedom of association.” The “chilling effect” is itself constitutional injury.
The parallel is obvious. In 1958, NAACP members faced threats from those opposing civil rights. In 2025, pro-life donors face threats from those supporting abortion. After Dobbs, 70+ pregnancy centers were vandalized or firebombed. Activists published “hit lists.” Donors legitimately fear harassment, doxxing, and economic boycotts.
Platkin himself labeled pregnancy centers “extremists.” What donor feels safe when the state’s chief law enforcement officer has prejudged the organization?
The principle: States cannot force donor disclosure without compelling justification. New Jersey hasn’t identified a single deceived donor or specific violation. Just blanket demands.
2. Federal Court Access (Section 1983)
Section 1983 (passed 1871) lets citizens sue state officials who violate federal constitutional rights. Purpose: ensure federal courts protect federal rights—even when state courts might be hostile.
Lower courts said First Choice must litigate in state court first. That defeats § 1983’s purpose. Knick v. Township of Scott (2019): You don’t have to exhaust state remedies before seeking federal protection.
If forced to state court, First Choice faces years of litigation, ongoing chilling effects, escalating sanctions ($10K→$100K→more). The question: Must citizens endure this before seeking federal protection?
Section 1983 answers: No. You can go directly to federal court.
3. Ripeness and Chilling Effect
Lower courts: Claims not “ripe” until enforcement. But First Choice’s injury is real NOW. The subpoena exists. Donors know. Some are reconsidering support. That’s present injury—not speculative future harm.
First Amendment harms are different. You don’t wait until speech is censored to challenge censorship. The chilling effect—deterrent impact on constitutional rights—establishes standing.
Justice Kagan’s “common sense”: Government demands donor names → donors stop giving → ministry’s work hindered. Real injury. Happening now.
The Third Way
Reject both extremes.
Progressive Narrative: Pregnancy centers are “fake clinics” deceiving women. States must investigate. Demanding donor lists is normal consumer protection.
False. Centers provide real medical services by licensed professionals. They serve millions annually ($452M in free services nationwide, 2024). Client satisfaction: 98%. Blanket accusations without evidence = ideological targeting, not consumer protection.
Libertarian Extreme: Nonprofits never disclose donors. All investigations suspect. States have no role policing charity fraud.
Also wrong. States can investigate actual fraud with evidence. Donor privacy isn’t absolute.
The Third Way:
- States Investigate Actual Wrongdoing—With Evidence
Consumer protection laws exist for a reason. But investigations need evidence. Not just disagreement with an organization’s mission.
New Jersey: No complaints. No deceived donors. No specific violations. Just blanket demands.
If Platkin had complaints from misled women or evidence of lies, investigation might be justified. But even then, narrowly tailored. Not ten years of donor lists for a website complaint.
Pattern suggests punishment, not protection.
- Donor Privacy Protects Rights on Both Sides
NAACP v. Alabama protects ALL Americans supporting controversial causes. The ACLU (pro-choice) filed supporting First Choice (pro-life). Why? If states force pro-life donor disclosure today, they can force ACLU donor disclosure tomorrow.
Donor privacy isn’t about hiding wrongdoing. It’s about supporting causes without fear of retaliation. In an era of doxxing and cancel culture, privacy matters more than ever.
- Federal Courts Protect Federal Rights
When states violate constitutional rights, citizens need federal courts. Not disrespectful to state courts—it’s what the Constitution guarantees.
If SCOTUS rules for New Jersey, it guts § 1983 in subpoena cases. Message to states: “Demand whatever you want. Even if unconstitutional, the process alone might bankrupt them.”
That can’t be the law.
What the Court Should Rule
SCOTUS should reverse and hold First Choice has standing.
Four reasons:
- Present injury. Donors chilled. Operations disrupted. Violation happening now.
- No waiting for contempt. Injury is the subpoena itself and its chilling effect—not just future sanctions.
- Federal courts available. Section 1983 guarantees federal forum when states violate constitutional rights.
- Donor privacy protected. NAACP v. Alabama requires compelling justification. New Jersey hasn’t provided one.
Link to Skrmetti: In United States v. Skrmetti (June 2025), SCOTUS upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-transition procedures for minors. Key principle: What matters is discriminatory purpose or effect.
Here, Platkin’s subpoena has discriminatory purpose. He hasn’t subpoenaed abortion providers or Planned Parenthood. He specifically targeted pro-life centers because he disagrees with their message. That’s viewpoint discrimination.
The Court should make clear: States can investigate actual fraud. But they cannot weaponize investigations to harass organizations with unpopular views. When states overstep, citizens have immediate federal court access.
What This Means for Christians
Three reasons to care:
- It Affects Ministries We Support
Pregnancy centers: practical pro-life expression. ~3,000 nationwide. Millions served in 2024. $450M in free services. Staffed by volunteers. Funded by donations.
If states force donor disclosure, centers shut down. Donors stop giving. Volunteers stop serving. Women and children lose help.
Not hypothetical. After Platkin’s alert, NJ centers reported declining donations and volunteer recruitment difficulty.
- Religious Liberty
First Choice is explicitly Christian. Staff/volunteers sign statement of faith. Partner with churches. Provide spiritual counseling. Believe every person from conception bears God’s image.
When states target organizations like this, they target religious ministry. Donor list demands identify and potentially punish people supporting unpopular religious views.
The First Amendment protects the right to believe, associate, and support ministries advancing those beliefs. Donor privacy is essential.
- Speaking Truth in Love
Christians defend life, protect the vulnerable, serve the needy. Pregnancy centers embody all three.
But also speak truth: Abortion ends human life. Women face pressure. Centers help women resist and choose life.
The abortion industry wants silence. Platkin labels centers “deceptive,” issues alerts, demands donor lists—using state power to silence those speaking for the unborn.
Christians must not be silent. Support centers. Speak truth. Defend ministries.
What Christians Should Do
- Support Pregnancy Centers
Find your local center. Donate. Volunteer. Provide goods. Attend fundraisers. Spread the word. These ministries are front lines—serving women, saving lives.
- Pray
Decision by June 2026. Pray for justices’ wisdom and courage. Pray for Erin Hawley (Alliance Defending Freedom) and legal team. Pray for Aimee Huber (First Choice executive director), staff, volunteers.
- Speak Truth
Counter the narrative. Facts: Centers provide real medical services by licensed professionals. Millions served. Compassionate care. 98% satisfaction.
When people call them “fake clinics”—correct them. When officials issue smearing alerts—call it out. When media amplifies pro-abortion talking points—respond with truth.
- Recognize the Pattern
Not isolated. Part of broader targeting:
- States forcing Christian colleges to provide abortion coverage
- Municipalities forcing centers to post signs directing to abortion providers
- IRS targeting conservative nonprofits
- State AGs demanding donor lists from orgs they oppose
The tactic: Use regulatory power to make life difficult for organizations with unpopular views. Even if state loses in court, the process is punishment—legal fees, compliance burden, operational disruption.
Christians must recognize and resist.
Biblical Principles
- Defend the Weak (Proverbs 31:8-9)
“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.”
Pregnancy centers do this. Speak for the unborn (no voice). Defend women in crisis (nowhere to turn). Provide for the needy (free services). When states attack these ministries, they attack those serving the most vulnerable.
- Resist Unjust Authority (Acts 5:29)
“We must obey God rather than human beings.”
First Choice’s mission: serve pregnant mothers, protect unborn children. Rooted in biblical truth: every person bears God’s image, deserves dignity. When states demand compliance with subpoenas designed to shut down ministry, Christians must stand firm.
Not about defying all authority—states have legitimate consumer protection roles. But when states weaponize power against religious ministries because of beliefs, Christians resist.
- Truth and Love Together (Ephesians 4:15)
“Speaking the truth in love…”
Real compassion requires truth. Not compassionate to call abortion “healthcare” or the unborn “clumps of cells.” Not compassionate to pressure vulnerable women into unwanted abortions. Not compassionate to hide abortion’s reality.
Pregnancy centers embody this. Tell women truth about abortion—its risks, its reality. Offer alternatives. Provide support. All with gentleness, respect, genuine care.
The abortion industry wants silence. Christians must speak truth in love.
Conclusion
Platkin wasn’t protecting consumers. He was punishing a ministry he disagrees with.
SCOTUS can now reaffirm NAACP v. Alabama (1958): States cannot force organizations to expose supporters to harassment simply because they hold unpopular views.
The Court should reaffirm Section 1983’s purpose: Federal courts protect federal rights. Citizens don’t navigate years of state litigation first.
And send a message to officials nationwide: You cannot weaponize investigations to silence ministries you oppose.
Decision expected June 2026. Until then: pray, support pregnancy centers, speak truth.
“When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers.” (Proverbs 21:15)
First Choice has served 36,000+ women. Saved countless lives. Provided millions in free services. Embodied Christ’s love by serving the vulnerable and defending the voiceless.
They deserve justice. So do the 3,000 pregnancy centers nationwide doing similar work—protection from officials who’d rather see them shut down than speak truth about life.
Related Articles:
Chiles v. Salazar: Christian Counselors vs State Control
