\n<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court ruled that New Jersey attorney general Matthew Platkin did not have the right to issue a sweeping subpoena against First Choice Women\u2019s Resource Centers<\/span>Mother Jones illustration; Kyle Mazza\/SOPA\/AP; Getty<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n In an outcome<\/span> that was widely expected, the US Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that New Jersey\u2019s efforts to investigate <\/a>an anti-abortion crisis pregnancy center for allegedly misleading consumers violated the First Amendment.<\/p>\n In a 9-0 decision, the justices said a sweeping subpoena by the state\u2019s then-attorney general, Matthew Platkin, seeking information about donors to First Choice Women\u2019s Resource Centers, a chain of anti-abortion pregnancy centers in northeastern New Jersey, \u201cburdened First Choice\u2019s associational rights.\u201d The full opinion in the case can be found here<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n The decision clears the way for First Choice to proceed with a federal lawsuit challenging the subpoena. \u201cDemands for private donor information\u2026\u2019chill\u2019 protected First Amendment associational rights even when those demands contemplate disclosure only to government officials and not \u2018the general public,\u2019\u201d Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for his fellow justices. <\/p>\n The decision drew parallels between New Jersey\u2019s demand for information and Alabama\u2019s attempts in the 1950s to force the NAACP to turn over the names and addresses of all of its members in the state. The high court sided with the NAACP in the landmark 1958 ruling<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cAssociational rights carry special significance for political, social, religious, and other minorities,\u201d Gorsuch wrote. \u201cTake that freedom away and \u2018dissident expression\u2019 stands particularly vulnerable to marginalization or outright \u2018suppression by the majority,\u2019 leaving all of society poorer for it.\u201d<\/p>\n But Wednesday\u2019s decision\u2014the second major Supreme Court victory for the CPC industry in recent years\u2014is likely to make it even harder for state lawmakers and attorneys general to investigate anti-abortion organizations. In 2018<\/a>, the court blocked<\/a> a California law that would have required pregnancy centers to inform patients about state-funded family-planning services, including abortion.<\/p>\n Crisis pregnancy centers,<\/span> faith-based organizations whose mission is to deter women<\/a> from having abortions, attract clients by offering free services such as pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, baby clothes,<\/strong> and diapers. But they also have a well-documented history of using misinformation and deception<\/a> to dissuade abortion seekers from terminating their pregnancies. Like many CPCs, First Choice\u2014which has served more than 36,000 clients in New Jersey since its founding in 1985\u2014created different websites for donors and the general public, tailoring its anti-abortion message for each audience.<\/p>\n \u201cStrip away the ability of individuals to work together free from governmental oversight and intrusion, and the freedom to associate may become no freedom at all<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/figure>\n The question<\/a> before the justices was narrow: Should First Choice be able to directly fight a state agency\u2019s subpoena in federal court, or must it initially go to state courts? The long-accepted procedure for enforcing or challenging such a subpoena, New Jersey argued,\u00a0is to first seek relief in state court, and then, should it be necessary, appeal to federal court.<\/p>\n But the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented First Choice, accused<\/a> Platkin of \u201cselectively target[ing] the nonprofit based on its religious speech and pro-life views.\u201d According to ADF, the Platkin subpoena had such serious implications that First Choice should be able to seek immediate relief in the federal courts, rather than having to expend time and resources litigating the issue first in state court. <\/p>\n Lining up behind First Choice was a predictable collection of anti-abortion and conservative groups. But they were joined by progressive groups, including the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press<\/a> and the ACLU<\/a>, which also raised concerns that the same type of subpoenas against First Choice could be weaponized against humanitarian groups, journalists, and protesters. In Wednesday\u2019s ruling, the justices seemed to concur. As Gorsuch wrote, \u201cStrip away the ability of individuals to work together free from governmental oversight and intrusion, and the freedom to associate may become no freedom at all\u2014individuals deterred, groups diminished, and their protected advocacy suppressed.\u201d <\/p>\n Anti-abortion groups hailed the decision. Erin Hawley, an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom who argued the case before the Supreme Court in December, called the ruling a \u201cresounding victory,\u201d and blasted New Jersey\u2019s investigation tactics as \u201cblatantly unconstitutional.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThis is a triumph for every faith-based ministry in America,\u201d\u00a0<\/strong>William\u00a0Haun, senior counsel at Becket, a legal group that focuses on religious cases, said in a statement. \u201cThe Court made\u00a0crystal clear\u00a0that\u00a0our First Amendment freedoms\u2014including religious freedom\u2014are\u00a0\u2018necessarily\u2019\u00a0associative, and that keeps the federal courthouse doors open for religious groups to protect their governance from\u00a0intrusive\u00a0state\u00a0bureaucrats.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n\n