A federal appeals court on Thursday upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit against the State Attorney General’s Office by one of the largest anti-abortion nonprofits in New Jersey that is attempting to block a subpoena seeking its donor records and identities.
The U.S. 3rd District Court of Appeals rejected, in a 2-1 vote, an appeal by First Choice Women’s Resource Centers to block enforcement of a subpoena issued by Attorney General Matthew Platkin’s Office in November 2023 seeking a broad range of documents going back more than 10 years.
In issuing the subpoena, the Attorney General’s Office said it believed First Choice was deceiving its donors by running multiple websites, that it was conducting medical procedures without the proper licensing, and sharing medical information that may be misleading.
Additionally, the state said First Choice represents that its services are “confidential” and “private” but elsewhere, it claims that it is exempt from HIPAA because it does not accept insurance, raising patient-privacy concerns.
A press secretary for the State Attorney General’s Office said Thursday the office has no comment.
READ MORE: Inside the unexpected anti-abortion battle unfolding in the abortion safe haven of N.J.
First Choice, a Christian nonprofit that operates five pregnancy centers in New Jersey, claims it’s being unfairly targeted by Platkin and the Attorney General’s Office.
“The government cannot target and harass pregnancy centers by demanding their donors’ identities without any basis. That information is protected by the U.S. Constitution, and the courts must safeguard First Choice’s donors from government harassment and intimidation,” said Lincoln Wilson, an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom, the Christian legal advocacy group representing First Choice.
“First Choice has been a key support system for women in the New Jersey community and deserves to be able to use its resources to fulfill its mission of serving women and their unborn children rather than responding to these retaliatory demands,” Wilson said Friday.
But the District Court of Appeals ruled that the nonprofit failed to prove that complying with the state subpoena would harm its activities, patients, and donors.
“Having considered the parties’ arguments, we do not think First Choice’s claims are ripe,” Judge Cindy K. Chung and Judge Jane R. Roth wrote in a four-page opinion.
Under the United States Constitution, federal courts can only decide cases that are “ripe” for review, or appropriate for argument in federal court. A claim may may not be justified if it is based on future events that may not occur as predicted or at all, according to the federal government.
“First Choice’s current affidavits do not yet show enough of an injury,” the judges wrote.
Judge Stephanos Bibas dissented and found First Choice’s constitutional claims justified because he said that the case is indistinguishable from Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, a 2021 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a California requirement that charities share the identities of donors.
Thursday’s opinion is just the latest development in an ongoing fight in New Jersey over the practices of the nonprofit facilities known as crisis pregnancy centers, which are often nonclinical facilities that advertise counseling and support for women experiencing unplanned pregnancies.
The centers and their supporters say they provide necessary services and resources to women and families in need. In New Jersey, that added up to an estimated $3.6 million in services to more than 23,000 women, men, and youth, according to a 2022 report from the Charlotte Lozier Institute, an anti-abortion think tank, and Care Net, a Christian organization that supports 1,200 centers in North America.
However, critics say the centers try to dissuade patients from getting abortions by giving false information, such as claiming a pregnancy is further along than it is, exaggerating the dangers of abortion, and promoting the unproven “abortion reversal pill.”
In 2022, a consumer alert issued by the state Attorney General’s Office and the Division of Consumer Affairs accused pregnancy centers of seeking “to prevent individuals from accessing abortion care, sometimes by providing false or misleading information about the safety and legality of abortion.”
Attorneys for First Choice claim that the state is attempting to chill free speech. They are still fighting attempts to enforce the subpoena in state court.
Thank you for relying on us to provide the journalism you can trust. Please consider supporting NJ.com with a subscription.
Jackie Roman may be reached at jroman@njadvancemedia.com.
