The U.S. Supreme Court is set to consider a closely watched case this fall that could redefine the boundaries of religious liberty and state investigative power.

The Christian Post reported that the federal government, 19 states, and several advocacy groups have filed briefs supporting a Christian pro-life center's claims that a state investigation violates its constitutional rights.

The legal battle, titled First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Platkin, stems from an investigation launched in November 2023 by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin into First Choice, a ministry serving women facing unplanned pregnancies. The state issued a subpoena demanding internal documents, including donor information, citing concern over potential violations of commercial practice laws.

Christian Ministry at Heart of Legal Dispute

First Choice Women's Resource Centers operates multiple locations across New Jersey and serves more than 36,000 women annually. The organization provides counseling, some medical services, and material assistance such as diapers and baby supplies. It identifies as a Christian pro-life nonprofit dedicated to assisting women during unplanned pregnancies.

Attorney General Platkin's subpoena did not allege specific legal violations but referenced state laws governing deceptive commercial practices. It set a one-month deadline for the group to hand over financial and operational data, including confidential donor lists.

In response, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a legal organization focused on religious liberty, filed a lawsuit in December 2023 challenging the subpoena. ADF argued that Platkin's actions chilled First Choice’s rights to free speech and association protected under the First Amendment.

Lower Courts Decline to Block Subpoena

The legal challenge initially failed to gain traction in lower courts. Judges ruled that the case must first be addressed through state proceedings and labeled the subpoena "non-self-enforcing," meaning there would be no immediate penalties unless a state court compelled compliance.

Several advocacy groups supporting First Choice have opposed this interpretation. They argue that the absence of a penalty does not eliminate the chilling effect of the subpoena on free expression and religious practice.

Legal filings submitted to the Supreme Court assert that the lower court ruling sidestepped constitutional issues by prioritizing procedural standards not grounded in the Constitution. Americans United for Life claimed the Third Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case using judicial reasoning unrelated to First Amendment concerns.

States and National Groups Join Fight

The federal government has now backed First Choice in an amicus brief led by the U.S. Department of Justice. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also filed in support, voicing concern over what it described as politically motivated state investigations that may target disfavored viewpoints.

Nineteen states, led by Missouri, joined a separate amicus brief echoing the argument that Platkin’s investigation unlawfully encroaches on First Choice’s religious and expressive freedoms. The states expressed alarm over disclosing internal ministry records without evidence of wrongdoing.

The brief argued that Attorney General Platkin has allowed politically aligned organizations, such as Planned Parenthood, to influence his office’s actions. It also claimed that these actions resemble a broader pattern targeting pro-life pregnancy centers under a partisan lens.

Concerns Over Broader Implications

Religious liberty groups, including the Becket Fund, Heartbeat International, and Care Net, raised concerns that Platkin’s subpoena could create national repercussions. Heartbeat International and Care Net, both mentioned in the subpoena, stated the document's reach places religious and advocacy groups in other regions at risk of similar targeting.

On Aug. 28, Heartbeat International submitted a brief asserting that the subpoena’s broad nature affects not only those within the attorney general’s jurisdiction but could also discourage speech and affiliation well beyond New Jersey.

William Haun, senior counsel with the Becket Fund, emphasized that constitutional protections require state governments to respect the independence of religious institutions. He added that the Supreme Court should put an end to what he described as New Jersey’s unwarranted interference.

Chamber of Commerce Warns of National Trend

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce's filing suggested there is an emerging trend of state governments targeting groups with opposing viewpoints. It cited multiple instances where officials compelled nonprofits to hand over sensitive records without cause.

"Governments across the country have increasingly demanded internal information from organizations they politically oppose," the Chamber noted. They warned such efforts could threaten essential legal safeguards for free speech and association.

The organization emphasized that precedent from the Supreme Court clearly limits how investigative powers can be used, especially in cases where no immediate legal necessity is evident.

High Court’s Decision Could Reshape Precedents

Carolyn McDonnell, litigation counsel for Americans United for Life, argued that the subpoena is unconstitutional under prevailing legal doctrine. She said it impedes First Choice's ability to pursue its mission by discouraging donors and silencing critical speech related to pro-life advocacy.

First Choice has refrained from compliance with the subpoena as the case awaits review by the Supreme Court. A ruling in the ministry’s favor could place new restrictions on state investigative actions involving religious nonprofits.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments during its fall 2025 term. A decision could carry major implications for the balance between religious freedom and regulatory authority in the United States.