Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas might not be the most boisterous or outspoken member of the United States Supreme Court, but when the veteran justice speaks, people tend to listen. No one needs to wonder what's on Thomas' mind or what he thinks about a case before the high court, once he's said his piece.
Such was the case on Tuesday, when Thomas didn't mince words when all but forcing a lawyer representing the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office to admit what pro-life groups have been saying for months; the Garden State's so-called “investigation” into a Christian pregnancy center was nothing more than a targeted political fishing expedition from the outset — with zero probable cause, and zero complaints lodged against the group, no less.
During oral arguments over a subpoena targeting First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Thomas pressed New Jersey Attorney General Platkin’s lead lawyer, Sundeep Iyer, on whether his office had any reason to believe the organization deceived donors.
Thomas' bottom-line question cut straight to the chase:
You had no basis to think that they were deceiving any of their contributors?
Oops. Aware that Thomas had just boxed him in, Iyer had little choice but to admit the truth — most of it, anyway, and at first, in a roundabout, lying-by-omission way:
We certainly had complaints about crisis pregnancy centers.
After he then admitted that none of the complaints were aimed at First Choice — a Christian-based non-profit that encourages and equips women and men to make informed pregnancy decisions — Iyer continued to dig a deeper hole:
We had no complaints. But state governments, [the] federal government, initiate investigations all the time in the absence of complaints where they have a reason to suspect that there could be potential issues of legal compliance. I think we had a more than ample basis to initiate this.
Just one problem.
Whatever complaints or concerns the state's AG received, zero of them were against First Choice, leading Thomas to jab Iyer:
Well, that just seems a burdensome way to find out whether someone has a confusing website.
Game, set, match?
ALSO CHECK OUT: Emails Show Collusion of Biden's DOJ and the National Abortion Federation to Investigate Pro-Life Groups
North Dakota Court Restores Near-Total Ban on Abortion
Here's background:
The 2023 subpoena from Platkin’s office requested that First Choice turn over names of its donors to investigators, alleging that the organization could be defrauding them.
First Choice sued, arguing the subpoena chilled its First Amendment rights.
Platkin’s team countered that First Choice was not yet required to turn over the donor names, but most of the justices were skeptical of the argument against letting the crisis center’s challenge continue.
Chief Justice John Roberts also got in on the act, chiding Iyer:
You don’t think it might have an effect on future potential donors to the organization to know that their name, phone number, address, etc, could be disclosed as a result of the subpoena?
Ooh, that was good, huh?
No matter; Iyer continued to insist the New Jersey AG's probe (read: witch hunt) had no such effect, while also claiming the closest First Choice got to proving otherwise was by presenting a donor declaration in which the donor said he or she would have been less “likely to donate … if we had known information about the donation might be disclosed.” The AG’s office called that a “backwards-looking statement.”
Hold the bus.
Assuming the donor declaration was legit, it had to have been written about the past — hence, "backwards-looking." So also assuming that neither Platkin nor Iyer is a soothsayer who can accurately predict the future, what other kind of statement would have been acceptable to the AG's lawyer than one about past statements, allegations, or lack thereof? (Zero.)
Following Tuesday morning' oral arguments, Aimee Huber, Executive Director of First Choice Women's Resource Centers, delivered a statement to the media, saying, in part:
At First Choice our mission is clear; we exist to encourage and equip women and men to make informed pregnancy decisions. We have been serving women facing unplanned pregnancies in New Jersey for 40 years, and helped over 36,000 women.
We provide baby clothes, maternity clothes, counseling, and material needs. Most of all, we provide compassion and hope to those who have none.
I never thought that serving women in need would put me in the crosshairs of my own state's attorney general, and yet here we are. The attorney general has sought to bury us with a crushing subpoena, asking us to reveal protected information, and divert resources without helping women — without raising any evidence of wrongdoing or a complaint lodged against us.
Yet here we — they, as in First Choice — are.
This is the point where I'm often fond of musing about a proverbial shoe-on-the-other-foot scenario.
If, say, the Florida or Texas Attorney General's Office launched an unfounded fishing expedition against an abortion clinic — one about which zero complaints or concerns had been lodged — what would be the reaction from the Democrat Party as a whole? From the left-wing media lapdogs? From left-wing keyboard warriors on social media?
Again, the question is rhetorical — because anyone who reads this article clearly knows the answer.
A decision by SCOTUS in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin is expected by the end of June 2026.
Note: Do you enjoy RedState’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Become a VIP member, and use the promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member