On April 29, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of First Choice Pregnancy Resource Centers, a pro-life organization that helps expectant women and mothers. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin subpoenaed First Choice, demanding a decade's worth of documents, including statements on abortion pill reversal, any information it provided to clients and donors, documentation identifying personnel, copies of every First Choice advertisement and donor solicitation, and information about any outside organizations First Choice worked with. First Choice Executive Director Aimee Huber called the subpoenas a "fishing expedition."
First Choice took the issue to the lower courts, which ruled against them. The Supreme Court ruled in their favor, saying they had a right to sue AG Platkin in federal court.
Despite this ruling, New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport has returned to a state court, demanding it enforce the subpoena anyway.
THREAD🧵: Last week, SCOTUS ruled 9-0 in favor of @ADFLegal client First Choice, vindicating its right to challenge the NJ AG’s unconstitutional subpoena in federal court.
— Kristen Waggoner (@KristenWaggoner) May 4, 2026
Despite that, AG Davenport is demanding a state court enforce the subpoena anyway.
Here’s what’s… pic.twitter.com/8jwc3302Sq
The day after the Supreme Court ruling, Davenport sent a letter to the state court demanding the enforcement of the subpoena, in full, before any federal review.
The very next day, NJ's AG filed a letter with the state court demanding the subpoena be enforced immediately, in full, before any federal review.
— Kristen Waggoner (@KristenWaggoner) May 4, 2026
Three things about the letter stand out:
- It demands the state court rush to judgment before a federal court can rule on First… pic.twitter.com/wCFhRZayGw
Waggoner notes there are three things about Davenport's letter that stand out. First, it demands that the state court rush a judgment before a federal court can rule on First Choice's constitutional challenges. It also maintains the subpoena's requests for private donor information, even though the Supreme Court made it clear that the request burdens First Amendment Rights and it accuses First Choice of "sprinting to the federal courthouse" (while Davenport sprints to the friendly state court).
This process has been going on for more than two years. First Choice did not "sprint" to federal court.
Davenport also accuses First Choice of creating "duplicative litigation" even though New Jersey fild the state-court action second.
The AG also accuses First Choice of creating "duplicative litigation."
— Kristen Waggoner (@KristenWaggoner) May 4, 2026
But it was NJ's office that filed the state-court action second, after First Choice went to federal court. The duplication she now blames on First Choice is one her own office created. 5/
Waggoner laid out exactly what's happening here.
Let's be clear about what's happening here.
— Kristen Waggoner (@KristenWaggoner) May 4, 2026
A state AG's office has spent more than two years using its coercive subpoena power to target a pro-life pregnancy center without any evidence of wrongdoing. The Supreme Court just unanimously affirmed that demanding private donor…
Her post reads:
A state AG's office has spent more than two years using its coercive subpoena power to target a pro-life pregnancy center without any evidence of wrongdoing. The Supreme Court just unanimously affirmed that demanding private donor information chills First Amendment rights and gets First Choice into federal court. One day later, the AG is racing to a state court to enforce the same subpoena before federal review can occur. This is part of a longer pattern of attempting to evade federal civil rights review. It also strengthens what we've said all along: the subpoena is retaliatory.
First Choice has First Amendment rights, even though the New Jersey's AG office doesn't like its pro-life mission.
First Choice's rights don't expire because a state AG disapproves of its mission. As SCOTUS unanimously affirmed last week, the First Amendment is stronger than the political gamesmanship of elected officials.@ADFLegal has responded, not just for First Choice, but for every… pic.twitter.com/XswcuvQgHM
— Kristen Waggoner (@KristenWaggoner) May 4, 2026
The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which has worked with First Choice on this litigation, responded in a letter to Judge Lisa M. Adubato of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County.
First Choice's rights don't expire because a state AG disapproves of its mission. As SCOTUS unanimously affirmed last week, the First Amendment is stronger than the political gamesmanship of elected officials.@ADFLegal has responded, not just for First Choice, but for every… pic.twitter.com/XswcuvQgHM
— Kristen Waggoner (@KristenWaggoner) May 4, 2026
The letter reads, in part:
Please be reminded that our Firm represents Defendant First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. (“First Choice”) in the above-referenced matter. Just two days ago, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held that First Choice has standing to vindicate its First Amendment challenges to the Attorney General’s Subpoena in federal court. Yet the day after issuing 9-0, Attorney General Davenport rushed to ask this Court to “proceed to resolve the enforceability of that Subpoena,” which she says is proper because the “mandate has now issued, and the stay has terminated.”
That is false. The Supreme Court has not issued a mandate. Nor could it. The Supreme Court’s rules allow for parties to file a “petition for rehearing of any judgment or decision of the Court on the merits . . . within 25 days after entry of judgment or decision.” S. Ct. R. 44. And if there is no rehearing, the Supreme Court will “send the clerk of the lower court a copy of the opinion or order of this Court and a certified copy of the judgment” 32 days after entry of judgment - not the day after. S. Ct. R. 45.
...
As for the merits, the Supreme Court rejected the former Attorney General’s request to force First Choice “to disclose materials that [it] believes are constitutionally protected,” including donor names and addresses. Id. at 5. The Supreme Court held that “the Attorney General’s demand for private donor information injures the group’s First Amendment associational rights.” Id. at 13. As the Court explained, “a demand for private donor information inevitably deters the exercise of First Amendment rights.” Id. at 12 (citation modified).
...
Yet Attorney General Davenport continues her office’s crusade to evade Section 1983’s protections. She insists that First Choice somehow acted wrongfully by having “sprint[ed] to the federal courthouse.” And even more remarkably, though her office’s action was the second-filed proceeding in this litigation, she accuses First Choice of “creat[ing] duplicative litigation.” Id. She cites no good reason why this Court should rush to judgment when, after years of litigation, the Supreme Court has now unanimously recognized First Choice’s right to the federal adjudication that the Attorney General has fought tooth and nail to avoid.
Finally, though the Supreme Court’s decision addressed only jurisdiction, its discussion sheds light on the merits. As the Supreme Court explained, the state did not receive a single “complaint[] from the public about First Choice.” Davenport, slip op. at 2. The Court also highlighted the utter implausibility of Attorney General Platkin’s central justification for demanding donor information: that “First Choice’s solicitation materials - including a donation webpage featuring pictures of parents holding infants and young children - could mislead donors into thinking First Choice provides abortions.” Id. at 3 (citation omitted). That lack of justification dooms the Attorney General’s demand for donor information on the merits. It also confirms that the entire Subpoena is an unconstitutional effort by the Attorney General to retaliate against First Choice for its pro-life position. Yesterday’s letter only reinforces that.
As First Choice Executive Director Aimee Huber said, this is a fishing expedition. First Choice received no consumer complaints; no donors or supporters were tricked into believing they were supporting a pro-life pregnancy center, as AG Platkin claimed in his subpoena.
Editor’s Note: The 2026 Midterms will determine the fate of President Trump’s America First agenda. Republicans must maintain control of both chambers of Congress.
Help Townhall continue to report on the Democrats’ radicalism and inform voters as our nation faces a crossroads. Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member