The New Jersey attorney general’s battle against a Christian pregnancy resource center will take center stage at the Supreme Court next week as Democrat officials ramp up the lawfare against pro-life organizations.
On December 2, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments about whether First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a Christian pregnancy center, can fight back in federal court against New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin’s attempt to gain access to its donor lists and promotion of the abortion pill reversal. Platkin issued a wide-ranging subpoena targeting the crisis pregnancy center as part of an investigation into whether they had lied about their services.
“If our attorney general can bully us, it can happen in other states that promote abortion. It’s our hope that our efforts will result in protection for pregnancy centers across the nation. There is such a great need in New Jersey for women to consider all of their pregnancy options and not think that abortion is their only option,” Aimee Huber, the executive director of First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, said in a press call.
First Choice has centers in five of New Jersey’s largest cities, including New Brunswick, Newark, Morristown, Montclair, and Jersey City. Services include free pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, and options counseling. They also offer a parenting program that provides essential needs such as baby clothes and diapers. Since 1985, they have aided over 36,000 women.
Represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, First Choice sued Platkin after he subpoenaed them in November 2023 for ten years of documents related to its promotion of the abortion pill reversal, information they provided to clients and donors, personnel records, and copies of every advertisement the centers had run.
“There were no allegations of wrongdoing,” Huber said. “It was simply a fishing expedition. Receiving the subpoena was completely overwhelming. We are a small nonprofit, and the idea of compiling so much information was completely daunting.”
In June 2025, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case after First Choice’s lawsuit hit snags at the federal district court and appeals court levels. The official question granted by the court is as follows: “Whether a federal suit challenging a subpoena issued by a state attorney general is justiciable if a state court has not yet issued an order directing the recipient to comply with the subpoena.”
Responding to the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case, Platkin said that the subpoena he issued was lawful and accused First Choice of hiding information about its operations.
“First Choice—a crisis pregnancy center operating in New Jersey—has for years refused to answer questions about their operations in New Jersey and the potential misrepresentations they have been making, including about reproductive healthcare,” Platkin said. “I remain committed to enforcing our fraud laws without fear or favor against anyone who would harm or violate the rights of our residents, no matter how powerful the entity on the other side.”
Right now, DailyWire+ annual memberships are fifty percent off during our Black Friday sale. Join now at dailywire.com/blackfriday.
Alliance Defending Freedom lawyer Lincoln Wilson said that the central question before the high court was whether First Choice had the right to challenge Platkin’s subpoena in federal court.
Fundamentally, though, Wilson said the case was about First Choice’s associational rights.
“Any organization, right or left, no matter which side of the aisle you’re on, there needs to be the ability to keep this information confidential,” he said. “And if the government can just go ahead on a pretextual theory and demand that you turn over the names of your donors, then everyone in this country is less free.”
The Trump administration is backing First Choice with the Justice Department filing an amicus brief arguing that First Choice should be allowed to pursue its federal lawsuit.
“A party has standing to challenge a subpoena, and such a challenge is ripe, if the party faces a credible threat that the government will bring proceedings to enforce the subpoena. Because petitioner satisfies that test, this suit is justiciable,” the Justice Department wrote.
Pregnancy centers across the country that support vulnerable women in blue states like California, New York, and Illinois have all faced legal challenges for promoting the abortion pill reversal protocol.
The protocol is a method backed by pro-life organizations where a woman can take a prescribed dose of bioidentical progesterone to potentially reverse the effects of Mifepristone and save an unborn child if she changes her mind at the last minute about going through with the abortion.
New Jersey has enshrined abortion into the state’s constitution and has no pro-life protections in place. Huber said that the expansive abortion laws created an environment where anyone offering an alternative would be targeted.
“Our state has done everything they could to make New Jersey a sanctuary state for abortion,” she said. “Since pregnancy centers like ours do not perform or refer for abortion, we are targets for a government that disagrees with our views.”