Columbus think tank asks Supreme Court to quash New Jersey subpoena demanding donor information

A Columbus-based think tank has filed an amicus brief in a New Jersey case, urging the nation’s highest court to quash a subpoena demanding a women’s center turn over donor information.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court said it would hear an appeal First Choice Women’s Resource Centers filed. The faith-based “abortion clinic alternative” is challenging a state probe alleging it deceived people into thinking its services included referrals for abortion.

The group, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, “does not perform or refer for termination services.” In its appeal to the Supreme Court, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers said the demand for donor information infringed on its First Amendment rights.

“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,” its lawyers wrote, the Associated Press reported. “Even if these accusations turn out to be false, it is important that a federal forum exists for suits challenging those investigative demands.”

Unsurprisingly, New Jersey officials asked the high court to pass on the case.

“The decision below is correct and does not have the impacts petitioner alleges,” state attorneys argued, per the AP.

On Wednesday, the Buckeye Institute filed its amicus brief, asking justices to quash a 2023 subpoena served by Democratic New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin on First Choice Women’s Resource Centers. The state demands that the center turn over information about its donors, which The Buckeye Institute said is private and constitutionally protected.

“New Jersey’s attorney general is using his power as the state’s highest law-enforcement official to take actions that will silence speech,” David C. Tryon, director of litigation at The Buckeye Institute, said in a release. “The issuance of the subpoena alone severely chills free speech and weaponizes the civil litigation process against organizations with whom New Jersey disagrees.”

Without substantive evidence of wrongdoing, the New Jersey attorney general issued a wide-ranging subpoena to First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, demanding the group identify its donors and supply up to 10 years of internal documents.

In its brief, The Buckeye Institute said, “New Jersey’s Attorney General is using his official position as the state’s highest law-enforcement official to take actions that will suppress speech that contradicts his personal beliefs about a hot-button issue.”

“When a man in a suit walks into your business and says, ‘This is a nice place you have here. Give me your customer list and no one gets hurt’—it constitutes a threat,” the think tank wrote. “The business owner might call the police or even the Attorney General for assistance. But what if the man in the suit is the Attorney General?”

The group argues that the subpoena, even if not issued in retaliation, is still improper, saying it intimidates people who support a particular viewpoint, silencing them.

“Some in our society have become increasingly intolerant of opposing viewpoints, even to the point of violence and murder,” the think tank added. “It would be naïve to fail to recognize the chilling impact these violent incidents will surely have on at least some donors and potential donors who worry that their names will become public and associated with an unpopular cause—whether on the right or the left.”

It added that “the issuance of this subpoena—even if it is ultimately quashed—severely chills First Amendment rights because individuals will now fear that their charitable contributions to organizations engaged in controversial issues will be subjected to government scrutiny and possible, if not likely, retaliation.”

The Buckeye Institute cited Alabama’s efforts in the 1950s to discourage the NAACP’s activities by demanding its full membership rolls as an example of pretextual governmental actions chilling speech.

“In both Alabama and New Jersey, government officials targeted public-interest groups advocating positions with which government officials disagreed,” The Buckeye Institute wrote. “Such actions targeting groups because of disfavored speech are abhorrent to the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of association.”