New Jersey’s Attorney General Just Defied the Supreme Court—All to Keep Harassing a Ministry That Helps Women and Saves Babies
In a unanimous 9–0 ruling on April 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a clear message: New Jersey cannot weaponize subpoenas to bully pro-life pregnancy centers and chill their supporters. Yet just one day later, Attorney General Jennifer Davenport doubled down on her predecessor’s pursuit of First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, ignoring the Court’s warning and escalating the very conduct it just condemned.
This is not law enforcement. It is ideological persecution.
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers has quietly served New Jersey families since 1985. As a faith-based nonprofit, it provides free ultrasounds, parenting classes, baby supplies, food, and compassionate counseling to women facing unplanned pregnancies. No abortions. No pressure. Just support for mothers and their unborn children. Tens of thousands of families have been helped through this work, but that is exactly what has made the organization a target.
Documents obtained through the Open Public Records Act reveal that former Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin worked in collaboration with Planned Parenthood to develop a so-called “consumer alert” warning the public about pregnancy centers. It was never tied to complaints or documented harm. Instead, it functioned as a political messaging tool aimed at steering women toward abortion providers and away from life-affirming alternatives.
That same approach led to the 2023 subpoena issued to First Choice, demanding 28 categories of records, including the private donor information of supporters. There was no complaint from a patient, no allegation of fraud or harm, only a sweeping demand for donor identities designed to expose and intimidate supporters.
First Choice challenged the subpoena in federal court, arguing it violated its First Amendment rights of speech and association. Lower courts initially blocked the case on procedural grounds, claiming the organization lacked standing until the subpoena was enforced.
The Supreme Court rejected that reasoning.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the unanimous Court in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Davenport, stated: “An injury in fact arises when a defendant burdens a plaintiff’s constitutional rights, and government demands for a charity’s private donor information have just that effect.” He further noted that such demands “are enough to discourage reasonable individuals from associating with a group.” The Court made clear that forcing donor disclosure can itself inflict constitutional harm by chilling free association.
The Supreme Court (in a 9-0 opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch) held that First Choice had established a sufficient present injury from the subpoena to confer standing in federal court. The justices rejected the idea that the group had to wait for state-court proceedings or that federal courts lacked jurisdiction.
That should have been the end of it.
Instead, on April 30, Attorney General Davenport asked a state court to lift its stay and immediately enforce the subpoena. Her office argues the Supreme Court only addressed procedural standing, not the merits. But the effect is unmistakable: accelerating enforcement in state court to pressure the very organization the Supreme Court just protected. It is an attempt to keep the subpoena alive at all costs.
Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Erin Hawley explained it plainly: “New Jersey’s attorney general is doubling down on her predecessor’s hostile crusade… Just one day after the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that her office’s donor demands burden the ministry’s First Amendment rights, Attorney General Davenport requested that the state court fast-track its enforcement proceedings.”
Aimee Huber put it even more directly, noting that the state has “gone to great lengths to frustrate the important work we do—work that has made a tangible, life-saving difference for tens of thousands of New Jersey women and their children.”
This reflects a broader pattern. When pro-life ministries cannot be defeated through legislation or public debate, government power is redirected through subpoenas, investigations, and donor intimidation. The justification is always “consumer protection,” but the pattern tells another story. No complaints. No victims. Only targeted scrutiny of organizations because of what they believe and whom they serve.
All of this litigation is being funded by our tax dollars. Instead of focusing resources on pressing public safety and economic concerns, the Attorney General’s office is devoting staff time, legal fees, and court resources to a case built on no complaints and now directly at odds with a unanimous Supreme Court ruling.
Opposition to this government overreach is not limited to one ideological side. Amicus briefs in the case reflect a broad coalition, including groups like the ACLU supporting the principle that donor privacy and First Amendment rights must be protected. That is because what’s at stake extends far beyond this case.
If the government can demand donor lists from a pro-life pregnancy center today, it can do the same to any advocacy group tomorrow.
When a case reaches the highest court in the land and earns a unanimous decision at this stage, it signals something important. The constitutional concerns here are serious, and they are being taken seriously.
But instead of treating that unanimous ruling as a warning, Attorney General Davenport is treating it as a hurdle, continuing to spend our tax dollars in pursuit of a case that should never have been brought.
That should concern everyone.
Because when a case is built on zero complaints, shaped through collaboration with ideological allies, and pursued in defiance of a clear Supreme Court decision, the conclusion is unavoidable. This is a targeted effort driven by pro abortion bias.
New Jersey deserves better.
It deserves an Attorney General who enforces the law fairly, even when it disagrees with the people exercising those rights, not one who continues a pattern of selective, politically driven investigations.
The Supreme Court has spoken, clearly, unanimously, and without ambiguity.
As this case moves forward, there is strong reason to believe this decision will not be the final word, particularly given First Choice’s robust legal defense team at ADF.