Constitutional Opinions Featured Free speech Pro-abortion Pro-life Supreme Court

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Crisis Pregnancy Center Subpoena Case – The American Spectator | USA News and PoliticsThe American Spectator

June 17, 2025

Continuing their commitment to destroying any competition to the lucrative abortion industry, Matthew Platkin, New Jersey’s attorney general, joined the parade of progressive politicians attempting to close down yet another pro-life crisis pregnancy center. Claiming that he was concerned that First Choice Resource Centers — a ministry that provides parenting classes, free ultrasounds, baby clothes and more to its New Jersey community — was “misleading donors and potential clients regarding the health services they provide,” Platkin and the Division of Consumer Affairs issued a subpoena in November 2023 demanding that First Choice identify the names and addresses of the donors to their five crisis pregnancy centers. On Monday, June 16th, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

Viewing the subpoena requesting the identities of the donors to their pro-life centers as a violation of their constitutional rights, First Choice enlisted the assistance of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a Christian law firm that has successfully litigated several free speech cases before the Supreme Court — including cases related to President Obama’s contraception mandate, and California crisis pregnancy centers. (RELATED: The Messed-Up World of People Who Believe Abortion Is Love)

In 2018, ADF won a significant victory in a ruling that California could not require crisis pregnancy centers in the state to supply women with information about how to end their pregnancies. In his ruling, Justice Kennedy provided what was described in the media as a “fiery concurring opinion,” that declared that “Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions. Freedom of speech secures freedom of thought and belief. This law (California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care and Transparency Act) imperils those liberties.”

Worried about a potential challenge to his authority to gain access to the identities of the donors to the pro-life centers, Platkin attempted to block the First Choice appeal to the Supreme Court, claiming that “identifying those donors would allow the state to determine if they were ultimately misled.” Believing that donors and potential clients may have been deceived into believing that First Choice was “providing certain reproductive health care services,” Platkin’s subpoena demanded that First Choice provide the identities of medical personnel at the centers and of donors who contributed to the crisis pregnancy centers using the centers’ website.

The AFP v. Bonta Supreme Court Case

Platkin may not prevail. In 2021, the Supreme Court denied California’s attempt to require all charities soliciting contributions in the state to report the identities of their major donors. In a 6-3 vote, Chief Justice John Roberts rejected California’s demands, claiming that it violated the First Amendment’s protection of the freedom of association. However, the ruling in the California case left open the possibility of what the justices called “targeted subpoenas.” New Jersey’s attorney general is attempting to exploit that exception by issuing his subpoena. The challenge from First Choice will help to clarify the scope of the 2021 ruling.

It would seem that in order to issue the subpoena, there would have to have been a complaint from a donor or a client that he or she was misled. The investigation by the New Jersey attorney general should have started with a complaint. But there is no evidence of a potential crime, no evidence of potential damages to anyone, and certainly no complaint. Rather, it appears that Platkin is fishing for a crime — and in that process, an opportunity to expose charitable donors to harassment from the pro-choice advocacy community.

Progressives like Platkin should be careful what they are asking for. If Platkin prevails in his ability to use a “targeted subpoena” in a fishing expedition to obtain the names and addresses of donors to a pro-life pregnancy center, then any government law enforcement official in the future can likewise use that same targeted subpoena to obtain the names and addresses of donors to a long list of progressive causes including advocates for gun-control, abortion, and a growing number of GLBTQ issues. First Amendment protections should apply equally to everyone. (RELATED: The Southern Poverty Law Center Is the Real Hate Machine)

Still, Alliance Defending Freedom has a challenge here. We have already witnessed the harassment or worse that donors can face when their donations to conservative causes are revealed publicly.

The Harmful Precedent of Doxxing Donors

In the aftermath of the California vote on same sex marriage in 2008, several individuals who supported Proposition 8, the state ballot measure to stop same-sex marriage in California, had their names and addresses published widely on the Internet — far beyond government websites — in an attempt to shame them. Their names were allowed to be published widely because of California’s Political Reporting Act of 1974, which publicly identified donors to political campaigns by requiring contributions of more than $100 to be published.

These donors were widely harassed, and some even lost their jobs simply because they contributed to Proposition 8. The New York Times reported on several of these victims, including a college professor from the University of California, San Francisco, who wrote a $100 check in support of Proposition 8 because he said he supported civil unions for gay couples but did not want to change the traditional definition of marriage. According to the Times, “he received many confrontational e-mail messages … one signed message blasted him for supporting the measure and was copied to a dozen of his colleagues and supervisors at the university.”

While these types of laws have not affected charitable organizations in the past, the courts continue to uphold campaign finance disclosure requirements by ruling that transparency in the political process was a valid and compelling state interest that outweighed the potential chilling effects on free speech.

One would hope that the Supreme Court will recognize that there is no “compelling state interest” in disclosing the names and addresses of donors to a crisis pregnancy center, especially when there have been no documented damages or harm to these donors. The attempt by New Jersey’s attorney general not only fails to protect donors’ free speech rights, but it also potentially puts them at great risk.

Source link