Supreme Court to hear New Jersey pro-life free speech case
June 16 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a Christian-based pregnancy center's request, challenging New Jersey over its claim the pro-life group misled women about offering abortion services.
The Supreme Court will decide later this year whether First Choice Women's Resource Centers can use federal courts to block the state's attorney general from investigating its donor, advertising and medical personnel records.
First Choice, which provides parenting classes and free ultrasounds to women facing unplanned pregnancies, claims a 2023 subpoena violated its free speech rights.
Attorney General Matthew Platkin "has made no secret of his hostility towards pregnancy centers," the pro-life group wrote in its petition to the Supreme Court, as it called Platkin's subpoena "invasive" for demanding access to records.
"State attorneys general on both sides of the political aisle have been accused of misusing this authority to issue demands against their ideological and political opponents," lawyers for First Choice wrote. "Even if these accusations turn out to be false, it is important that a federal forum exists for suits challenging those investigative demands."
Platkin argues that the subpoena he issued has yet to be enforced in state court. He also said the donor information he sought was from two websites, which he claimed may have misled people into thinking First Choice provided abortions.
"Nonprofits, including crisis pregnancy centers, may not deceive or defraud residents in our state, and we may exercise our traditional investigative authority to ensure that they are not doing so -- as we do to protect New Jerseyans from a range of harms," Platkin wrote in a statement.
The Supreme Court will focus on whether First Choice sued prematurely, not whether New Jersey's subpoena was valid, according to Platkin.
"First Choice is looking for a special exception from the usual procedural rules as it tries to avoid complying with an entirely lawful state subpoena," Platkin added. "No industry is entitled to that type of special treatment -- period."
Lawyers for First Choice said the group is not seeking special treatment and believes their free speech rights are being targeted.
"New Jersey's attorney general is targeting First Choice simply because of its pro-life views," Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Erin Hawley said in a statement. "The Constitution protects First Choice and its donors from unjustified demands to disclose their identities, and First Choice is entitled to vindicate those rights in federal court."
Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for October.
"We are looking forward to presenting our case to the Supreme Court and urging it to hold that First Choice has the same right to federal court as any other civil rights plaintiff," Hawley added.
"The First Amendment protects First Choice's right to freely speak about its beliefs, exercise its faith, associate with like-minded individuals and organizations, and continue to provide its free services in a caring and compassionate environment to people facing unplanned pregnancies."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
3 hours ago
- New York Times
West Point and Air Force Academy Affirmative Action Lawsuits Are Dropped
When the Supreme Court struck down race-conscious admissions at colleges in 2023, the justices said the decision did not apply to military academies because they had 'potentially distinct interests.' The group behind the litigation, Students for Fair Admissions, sued shortly after to test that idea. It argued that the use of race in admissions at the academies, including the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and the United States Air Force Academy, should also be struck down. On Monday, the group dropped its case, acknowledging a significant shift in the political landscape since it had brought its lawsuit. In some of their earliest actions in office, Trump administration officials reversed diversity initiatives, including the considering of race in admissions, at the military schools. A week after President Trump took office, he issued an executive order that stated that no one in the armed forces 'should be preferred or disadvantaged on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, color or creed.' In announcing the end of the cases on Monday, the president of Students for Fair Admissions, Edward Blum, called the moves historic. In a statement, the group said it had reached an agreement with the Department of Justice, on behalf of the Defense Department, that ensures that future cadets will be admitted 'solely on merit, not skin color or ancestry.' The Air Force Academy declined to comment immediately. Representatives of the Department of Defense and West Point did not respond to messages. The agreement on Monday stated that the Department of Defense had determined, after reviewing evidence, that considering race in military academy admissions 'does not promote military cohesiveness,' national security or any other interest. The settlement states that the military academies will have no goal based on race or ethnicity and will not track the race of applicants. It also says that if an applicant selects a race or ethnicity on an application, 'no one with responsibility over admissions can see, access or consider' that information before a decision is made. The secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, has long argued — first as a cable news host and then in his current position — that 'woke' policies undermine morale in the military. But some who have studied military history disagree with that assertion. 'Nothing in my nearly 25 years of experience in the military substantiates that argument,' said John W. Hall, a professor of military history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Dr. Hall, a 1994 West Point graduate, said that the military had been an early champion of diversity initiatives, 'not out of any sense of innate progressivism or certainly not wokeness.' Rather, he said, 'they were necessary for the effectiveness of the military.' He added that in exempting the service academies, the 2023 Supreme Court ruling, which involved race-conscious admissions policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, gave 'deference to generations of experience, expertise and lessons learned.' The settlement comes as the Trump administration has made stamping out any diversity efforts from colleges a pillar of its attack on higher education. On Thursday, the administration broadened this effort when it released a White House directive requiring colleges and universities to share a broad array of information about the race, test scores and grades of applicants and enrollees. It argued that a lack of data 'continues to raise concerns about whether race is actually used in practice.'
Boston Globe
4 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Trial starts over Trump administration's deployment of National Guard to Los Angeles
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up On Monday, Trump said he was Advertisement The trial in San Francisco could set a precedent for how Trump can deploy the guard in the future in California or other states. The Trump administration federalized California National Guard members and sent them to the second-largest US city over the objections of Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom and city leaders after Advertisement The Department of Defense ordered the deployment of roughly 4,000 California National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles. Most of the troops have since left, but California is asking Judge Charles Breyer to order the Trump administration to return control of the remaining troops to the state and to stop the federal government from using military troops in California 'to execute or assist in the execution of federal law or any civilian law enforcement functions by any federal agent or officer.' Newsom won an early victory from Breyer, who found the Trump administration violated the Constitution's 10th Amendment, which defines power between federal and state governments, and exceeded its authority. The Trump administration immediately appealed, arguing that courts can't second-guess the president's decisions. It After their deployment, the guard members accompanied federal immigration officers on raids in Los Angeles and at two marijuana farm sites in Ventura County while Since June, federal agents have rounded up Trump federalized members of the California National Guard under a law that allows the president to call the National Guard into federal service when the country 'is invaded,' when 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government,' or when the president is otherwise unable 'to execute the laws of the United States.' Advertisement Breyer found the protests in Los Angeles 'fall far short of 'rebellion.'' Ernesto Santacruz Jr., the field office director for the Department of Homeland Security in Los Angeles, said in court documents that the troops were needed because local law enforcement was slow to respond when a crowd gathered outside the federal building to protest the June 7 immigration arrests. 'The presence of the National Guard and Marines has played an essential role in protecting federal property and personnel from the violent mobs,' Santacruz said.
Time Magazine
4 hours ago
- Time Magazine
What Is the Home Rule Act? The Law Trump Invoked in D.C. Takeover
To take control of the police force of Washington, D.C., President Donald Trump on Monday invoked part of the law that has given the nation's capital a greater degree of self-governance over the past five decades. Citing 'violent crime,' Trump declared a public safety emergency in D.C. and invoked section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973. The law 'is the result of the ongoing push by District residents for control of their own local affairs,' according to the Council of the District of Columbia. D.C. was previously directly governed by Congress—which the Constitution grants authority to 'exercise exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever' over the district—and federal appointees. The Home Rule Act allowed city residents to elect a mayor and council starting in the fall of 1974, though it maintained a congressional oversight over D.C. Congress reviews all legislation that the Council passes before it can be enacted into law, and maintains authority over the city's budget. D.C. still doesn't have a voting member of Congress. Section 740 of the law allows the President to take control of D.C.'s police force in 'conditions of an emergency nature'—with certain limitations. The President can federalize the city's law enforcement agency for a period of up to 30 days under the Act, after which point both chambers of Congress must enact into law a joint resolution to extend the emergency control. The Executive Order that Trump signed on Monday says that the federal government shall maintain control of the city's police force 'for the maximum period permitted under section 740 of the Home Rule Act.' Read More: Trump Threatens to Federalize D.C. After Beating of 'Big Balls' Trump threatened to federalize D.C., decrying crime in the city, after the reported assault of a Trump Administration staffer—though data show that violent crime in the city is down significantly. For the federal government to fully take control of the city's governance, the Home Rule Act would have to be suspended or repealed. Some GOP politicians have expressed support for federalizing D.C., a heavily Democratic city, and pushed to repeal the law. Democrats, meanwhile, slammed Trump's move on Monday. D.C.'s Democratic non-voting representative in Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton, called it 'an historic assault on D.C. home rule' and 'a counterproductive, escalatory seizure of D.C.'s resources to use for purposes not supported by D.C. residents.' Norton and Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland announced the same day that they plan to reintroduce legislation that would give the district full control over the D.C. National Guard and the city's police department when Congress convenes next month, saying those actions 'are needed more urgently than ever.' The bills, the lawmakers said, would repeal the section in the Home Rule Act that allows the President to federalize the city's police force. Norton and other Democratic lawmakers previously introduced similar legislation in 2021, soon after the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. In announcing her intention to introduce the legislation at the time, Norton said that the attack on the Capitol 'highlighted more starkly than ever the risk to local D.C. public safety from the president's control over the D.C. National Guard and ultimate authority over the D.C. police department,' adding that 'the mayor should not be reliant on the president to deploy the National Guard to protect public safety in D.C., and D.C. should never have to worry that a president will take over its police force and use it how he or she sees fit.'
