What is a small, faith-based, nonprofit organization to do when faced with the daunting prospect of being targeted by a hostile government official? The Supreme Court just ruled unanimously that you can get your day in federal court when that harassment violates constitutional rights.
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers is a faith-based pregnancy center with five locations, serving women and families in New Jersey. Among other things, First Choice provides educational and material resources such as baby clothes, maternity clothes, food, diapers, car seats, free parenting classes, abortion aftercare, and information and parenting support that their clients may not have known existed.
But New Jersey officials targeted First Choice because of its pro-life views, issuing an invasive subpoena and opening an investigation despite never identifying a single complaint against the nonprofit group.
I WAS TRAFFICKED, ABUSED, AND RAPED. GOVERNMENT SHOULDN’T STOP ME FROM HELPING WOMEN
Former New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin made no secret of his hostility toward pregnancy centers like First Choice. He issued a consumer alert against them, and he allowed Planned Parenthood to preview and edit his draft of the alert, thanking them for their “partnership.”
His subpoena demanded up to a decade of documents from First Choice, including information that the Constitution protects, such as the names, phone numbers, addresses, and places of employment of First Choice’s donors. So, for Aimee Huber, executive director of First Choice, exposing the ministry and her donors to the state’s hostility and crippling the ministry’s work was not an option. Thus began a David-versus-Goliath legal battle, in which the process itself is often the punishment. Aimee and her ministry chose to stand when others may have fled and turned to Alliance Defending Freedom for help. The Supreme Court just handed First Choice five smooth stones in a unanimous decision in the centers’ favor.
The lower courts had placed First Choice in a catch-22: First Choice could not raise its constitutional claims, including its right to freely associate under the First Amendment, in federal court until a state court enforced the subpoena. However, a legal principle called res judicata would then prevent First Choice from litigating in federal court any matters that were or could have been decided by the state court. So, First Choice would be forced to vindicate its federal constitutional rights in state court, the attorney general’s home turf. But if it did so and lost, its federal claims would be barred in federal court.
This was the main focus of the arguments at the Supreme Court in December of last year. During oral argument, even Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared skeptical of the state’s legal contortionism. She seemed to reject the state’s argument that preclusion was just “too bad” and asserted that the state had “sort of made it impossible for [First Choice] to make their claim in federal court.”
While New Jersey’s coercive subpoena against First Choice was ideologically motivated, support for First Choice was not. A total of 39 amicus briefs in support of First Choice were filed by parties from points all along the ideological spectrum (including the American Civil Liberties Union) in addition to briefs from the U.S. government, 19 states, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, religious organizations, and anonymous donors to pregnancy centers.
The Supreme Court agreed that New Jersey’s subpoena and investigation created a chilling effect on First Choice’s First Amendment rights. First Choice is thus entitled to its day in federal court now, not after state court litigation, which could shutter those federal courthouse doors.
Why go all the way to the Supreme Court to win your day in federal court? To give every individual and organization at odds with a government-imposed ideological orthodoxy the forum it is entitled to by law. New Jersey is just one of many states harassing pro-life pregnancy centers for their beliefs.
SUPREME COURT’S LOUISIANA REDISTRICTING RULING POISED TO WIPE OUT HOUSE DEMOCRATS IN THE SOUTH
From Washington state to Vermont, California to New York, state officials have attempted the same targeting. Whether they’re going after confidential donor data or attempting to punish centers for sharing possibly life-saving information about abortion pill reversal, their message is clear — if you provide free, compassionate care and information to women and families, you could be subjected to harassment by your state government.
But, with the help of ADF, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers pushed back, resulting in a clear conclusion from the highest court in the land. When state officials target and harass groups over ideological disagreements, they will be held accountable in federal court for violating constitutional rights.
Lathan Watts is the vice president of public affairs for Alliance Defending Freedom (@ADFLegal) and its sister organization ADF Action. He earned his juris doctor degree from the University of Mississippi.