Weaponizing Government Against Pro-Lifers? Supreme Court Presses New Jersey

Summary

---

Morning Wire Episode Summary

Podcast: Morning Wire
Episode: Weaponizing Government Against Pro-Lifers? Supreme Court Presses New Jersey
Date: December 6, 2025
Hosts: John Bickley, Georgia Howe (The Daily Wire)
Guest: Aaron Hawley (General Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom)

---

Episode Overview

This episode examines a significant Supreme Court case involving First Choice Women's Resource Centers and New Jersey's Democrat Attorney General, Matt Platkin. The discussion centers on whether government officials are weaponizing state power to target pro-life organizations, specifically examining the implications of subpoenas demanding extensive sensitive records from a Christian nonprofit. Aaron Hawley of the Alliance Defending Freedom—who previously argued to overturn Roe v. Wade—offers legal insights, recounts oral arguments, and discusses broader patterns of governmental hostility toward pro-life groups.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Case Background and Stakes

• First Choice alleges that New Jersey’s AG targeted them due to their religious, pro-life stance by issuing a sweeping subpoena for ten years of donor records, with no evidence of wrongdoing.
  • [01:32] John Bickley: “The case pits First Choice Women's Resource Centers against New Jersey's Democrat Attorney General Matt Platkin...based on its religious speech and pro life views.”
• Potential Precedent: The Supreme Court’s decision may impact how states can subpoena, investigate, or harass pregnancy centers and similar organizations across the country.

2. Oral Arguments—Justice Reactions

• Favorable Lines of Questioning:
  • Justice Barrett questioned New Jersey’s “hostility” and highlighted the context of AG actions resembling a “declared war on pregnancy centers.”
    • [04:10] Aaron Hawley: “Justice Barrett…pointed out the hostility that New Jersey has shown toward pregnancy care centers...declared war on pregnancy centers.”
  • Justice Jackson raised concerns that federal courts might be inaccessible for constitutional claims if state actions block entry—an access to justice argument.
    • [04:55] Aaron Hawley: “Justice Jackson seemed very concerned...because of various legal doctrines, you can never come back to federal court.”
  • Justice Kagan referenced the potential chilling effect of being forced to disclose donor names, making a strong free speech point.
    • [05:19] Aaron Hawley: “If I receive a subpoena that demands donor names...this is going to chill the First Amendment rights of recipients...”

3. Notable Moments & Quotes

• Lack of Complaint: No specific complaints were lodged against First Choice, but the state initiated intrusive legal action regardless—a key point pressed by Justice Thomas.
  • [06:03] Aaron Hawley: “The New Jersey Attorney General has never said that he received a single complaint against First Choice by anyone.”
  • [06:18] (Paraphrased exchange)
    • Justice Thomas: “Did you have complaints that formed the basis…?”
    • NJ Attorney General: “We haven’t had complaints about this specific [center].”
• Important Precedent:
  • [06:56] Aaron Hawley: “There’s a case called Americans for Prosperity...that case protected the donor information...the court said, no, that’s protected information under the First Amendment.”

4. Broader Pattern of Government Targeting Pro-Lifers

• Pattern of Subpoenas and Harassment: New York and Washington AGs also filed lawsuits or sent sweeping subpoenas aimed at pregnancy centers, requiring them to expend large resources defending their basic First Amendment rights.
  • [08:55] Aaron Hawley: “…sometimes the process is part of the punishment…the litigation has been going on for two years…over 50 something briefs filed…that is a ton of burden on a nonprofit which seems to be part of the point.”

5. Planned Parenthood’s Role & State of the Movement

• AGs’ Coordination with Planned Parenthood: Allegation that New Jersey AG essentially consulted Planned Parenthood in shaping strategy against pregnancy centers.
• Planned Parenthood's Decline?: While still politically significant, recent reports and legal defeats reveal internal issues and setbacks in several states.
  • [10:39] Aaron Hawley: “It’s an expose on Planned Parenthood…it talks about terrible conditions not only for women…bad healthcare…not well run.”

6. Momentum on Pro-Life Legal Rights

• Recent Legal Wins:
  • Parental Rights: Mahmood case upheld religious parents' rights regarding school curriculum ([11:31]).
  • Funding Choice: Medina case confirmed states can defund Planned Parenthood in favor of comprehensive health centers.
  • Court Vigilance: Courts increasingly recognize that administrative harassment of pro-life centers infringes on constitutional rights, but “it seems to be taking courts to step in and police those boundaries.” ([11:31]–[12:35])

---

Memorable Quotes with Timestamps

• Aaron Hawley [04:10]:

  “Justice Barrett…pointed out the hostility that New Jersey has shown toward pregnancy care centers…the attorney general had essentially…declared war on pregnancy centers.”

• Aaron Hawley [05:19]:

  “If I receive a subpoena that demands donor names, I don’t want my name and address and phone number out there…this is going to chill the First Amendment rights of recipients in sort of a common sense way.”

• Aaron Hawley [06:03]:

  “The New Jersey Attorney General has never said that he received a single complaint against First Choice by anyone. And so Justice Thomas really leaned into that and asked the New Jersey attorney.”

• Aaron Hawley [08:55]:

  “Sometimes the process is part of the punishment…the litigation has been going on for two years…over 50 something briefs filed in the case…that is a ton of burden on a nonprofit which seems to be part of the point.”

• Aaron Hawley [11:31]:

  "I think we are seeing momentum building…there seems to be the sort of recognition that even if you dislike pregnancy care centers, you can't harass them with subpoenas, you can't sue them to stop them from speaking…But it seems to be taking courts to step in and police those boundaries."

---

Timeline of Key Segments

• [01:32] – Introduction to the Supreme Court case and New Jersey’s actions
• [03:28] – Guest Aaron Hawley joins, discusses case background and oral arguments
• [04:10] – Justices’ questioning and their implications for First Amendment protections
• [06:03] – Lack of complaints and intrusive subpoenas
• [08:38] – Discussion on broader state trends targeting pro-life groups
• [10:15] – Planned Parenthood’s role and current status
• [11:31] – Momentum and recent court victories for pro-lifers

---

Conclusion

The episode provides a comprehensive look at a Supreme Court case that could reshape how states interact with pro-life organizations. Both judicial questioning and recent case law signal increasing scrutiny of government attempts to chill pro-life speech and activities via legal harassment. Aaron Hawley and the Daily Wire team argue that, regardless of one's stance on abortion, the constitutional implications—particularly regarding free speech and due process—are profound. The episode closes with optimism for the pro-life legal movement but acknowledges the ongoing need for vigilant court oversight.

---

Transcript

[Host/Announcer]

This podcast is sponsored by Gold Belly. Unwrap the magic of Gold Belly with America's most iconic food gifts shipped nationwide. Whether it's the one and only Joe Stone Crab from Miami, legendary steaks from Peter Luger's in New York, or decadent cakes for food icons like Ina Garten or Martha Stewart, Goldbelly has the epic gifts your friends and family will rave about for years. Use promo code Gift for free shipping and 20% off your first order on Goldbelly.com our Daily Wire + Cyber Week sale is live.

[John Bickley]

All annual memberships are 50% off. And this year you get more than.

[Host/Announcer]

Ever more new daily shows from the most trusted voices in conservative media. Uncensored ad free, available an hour before you can see or hear them anywhere else. Daily Wire plus is premium entertainment built to compete with the best that's out there. Epic Productions Cinematic storytelling.

[Aaron Hawley]

Every project crafted with major studio precision.

[Host/Announcer]

But grounded in truth, not trend. That standard comes to life with the Pendragon cycle the Rise of the Merlin. The seven cinematic epic premieres January 22, 2026, exclusively on Daily Wire Plus. All Access members get early access to episodes one and two on Christmas Day. Your annual membership for 50% off gets you full access to everything else we're building next. The Cyber Week sale ends Monday, December 8th. When it's gone, it's gone. Go to DailyWire.com subscribe and join right now.

[Aaron Hawley]

The Supreme Court heard arguments this week on a case involving a state allegedly intimidating and harassing a pregnancy center for not conducting abortions.

[John Bickley]

The case pits First Choice Women's Resource Centers against New Jersey's Democrat Attorney General Matt Platkin. First Choice alleges that Plotkin selectively targeted the Christian nonprofit based on its religious speech and pro life views.

[Aaron Hawley]

Plotkin issued a wide ranging and intrusive subpoena that requires the organization to hand over extensive records, including donor information, and it does so without the AG actually providing any substantive evidence of wrongdoing. The case could set precedent on states AB to similarly target pregnancy centers and pro life organizations.

[John Bickley]

In this episode, we sit down with one of the attorneys arguing on behalf of First Choice Alliance Defending Freedom General Counsel Aaron Hawley, who unpacks what's at the heart of the case and what we've learned from the response of the high court. I'm Daily Wire Executive Editor John Bickley with Georgia Howe. This is a weekend edition of Money Wire.

[Host/Announcer]

By the time the average person reaches 60, they've likely cycled through numerous fad diets, collectively losing and regaining several hundred pounds over the years. All that yo yo dieting increases your risk of diabetes, liver problems and heart issues. The truth is most of us need more than willpower to break free from this pattern. That's where lean comes in. Unlike those expensive GLP1 injections, Lean is a non prescription supplement created by doctors specifically for this problem. And the science behind it is rock solid. Lean tackles weight loss three ways that actually help you keep it off. It keeps your blood sugar steady. No more energy crashes, sending you into a snack cabinet. It controls cravings and that constant hunger feeling. And it helps your body convert fat into energy instead of storing it. I say it all the time. I was skeptical, but I tried it anyway. And before I knew it I was down a pant size and I was going to the daily Wire kitchen way less. If you want to lose meaningful weight at a healthy pace and keep it off, add lean to your diet and exercise lifestyle. Get 20 off when you enter code morning [e-mail] that's code morning [e-mail] today.

[Aaron Hawley]

Portions of this interview aired earlier this week.

[John Bickley]

Joining us now to discuss is Aaron Hawley, general counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, one of the attorneys arguing the case for First Choice and who successfully argued to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022. Thanks for joining us. So this case stems from New Jersey's Democrat attorney general targeting pregnancy resource centers. That's the claim from your client, First Choice. He created a strike force. He issued a consumer alert against them and then issued a subpoena to First Choice that was extremely intrusive. That included asking for donor information going back 10 years. So we've just heard oral arguments before the Supreme Court by the line of questioning from the justices, do you have a sense of how they appear to.

[Aaron Hawley]

So I'll have to paraphrase an old boss of mine and after arguing he would say, you know, I would rather be our side than their side. And I think that's definitely true. After this oral argument, if you think about some of the questions the justices were asking, Justice Barrett, for example, pointed out the hostility that New Jersey has shown toward pregnancy care centers. You had this project strike on the pregnancy centers. You know, the attorney general had essentially, you know, what your friends on the other side would say, declared war on pregnancy centers. So if it is true that the non self executing subpoena is enough, if it's in the context of other government statements, why wouldn't that be satisfied here? Justice Jackson seemed very concerned about this idea that you never get into federal Court. Not only does it shut you out initially, but even once you go to state court because of various legal doctrines, you can never come back to federal court.

[John Bickley]

In cases like Whole Women's Health, for instance, this court noted that there may not always be available a federal forum for a federal constitutional claim challenging state.

[Aaron Hawley]

So you're not saying they would be precluding. You're saying there are times when it's too bad. Justice Kagan took a really practical view of the case. She's not one that you would. Would maybe expect to be ideologically aligned with First Choice. And yet she made the common sense point. If I receive a subpoena that demands donor names, like a. I don't want my name and address and phone number out there. And so she was saying that this is going to chill the First Amendment rights of recipients in sort of a common sense way. And it seemed like a majority or certainly several members of the court were really understanding the effect the subpoena had both on First Choice Women's Resource center as well as its donors.

[John Bickley]

So that seems pretty promising for First Choice. Were there any particularly surprising moments to you in the arguments? Anything you weren't anticipating?

[Aaron Hawley]

So one kind of highlight of the oral argument was the fact that the New Jersey Attorney General has never said that he received a single complaint against First Choice by anyone. And so Justice Thomas really leaned into that and asked the New Jersey attorney.

[Host/Announcer]

Did you have complaints that formed the basis of your concern about.

The fundraising activities here?

[John Bickley]

We certainly had complaints about crisis pregnancy centers Petition.

[Host/Announcer]

No. About this crisis pregnancy center.

[John Bickley]

So I think we've been clear from the outset that we haven't had complaints about this specific.

[Host/Announcer]

So you had no basis to think that they were deceiving any of their contributors.

[John Bickley]

So I would think that if there weren't complaints in advance, these kinds of severe actions by an attorney General would be overthrown. Is there a precedent that would apply to these kinds of sort of unprompted subpoenas like New Jersey issued here?

[Aaron Hawley]

So. So there is. So there's a case called Americans for Prosperity, and this case protected the donor information of a California regime that required all charities to disclose their donors to the California attorn general. And the court in that case said, no, that's protected information under the First Amendment. In addition, there are other cases that sort of talk about the over breadth of the subpoena. You can't serve a subpoena for retaliatory reasons. And here, if you don't have any reason at all, then that makes one think Maybe it's because the Attorney General didn't like the viewpoint. In addition, one of the interesting things about the argument here is the way the New Jersey Attorney General was presenting the case is that you never, as Justice Jackson picked up on, get into federal court. And that's just contrary to how the federal courts treat federal rights. Under a reconstruction statute known as Section 1983, when a state or local official allegedly violates your constitutional rights, you get to go to federal court. So this would be that the Attorney General of New Jersey was really seeking to create an exception for subpoenas from, from ordinary rules that apply to other cases.

[John Bickley]

Okay, so the decision could have sort of an ancillary protection by highlighting this issue of harassment based on viewpoint discrimination. Is that what you're arguing?

[Aaron Hawley]

Yes. And just the fact if the, if the Supreme Court points out the harassment and shows that it is an element of considering whether there's an objective chill, I would expect that that would sort of back some of these Attorney Generals off the plate. They're going to be more cautious before, you know, handing out subpoenas willy nilly ask like donor names.

[John Bickley]

Now your team at ADF has been obviously defending a lot of clients that have experienced some sort of persecution for being Christians, for being pro life. Is this part of a larger pattern in terms of AGs, people in official positions of power in states figuring out ways to target specifically pro lifers?

[Aaron Hawley]

You know, it does appear to, to be that in the state of California, the state of New Jersey, or sorry, New York, those Attorney Generals actually filed suit against pregnancy care centers trying to prohibit from sharing information about progesterone that can be administered after you take the first abortion drug. That decision, we actually got a decision from the 2nd Circuit finding the New York Attorney General could not squelch that sort of speech that she had to allow pregnancy centers to tell women about apr. And so that's just one example. I mentioned the State of Washington, but the Washington Attorney General also issued a sweeping subpoena to a pregnancy center demanding 10 years worth of documentation on all sorts of things, also requesting donor names. We finally were able to get that case settled. The AG dropped that investigation. But again, this takes a tremendous amount of resources on behalf of pregnancy care centers. And as someone has said, sometimes the process is part of the punishment. The first choice litigation has been going on for two years. There have been over 50 something briefs filed in the case between the New Jersey Attorney General and us. And that is a ton of burden on a nonprofit which seems to be part of the point.

[John Bickley]

So Planned Parenthood has come up a couple of times in this discussion. I wanted to ask you about them. They were consulted by the AG to come up with this, as we've characterized it, a sort of harassment policy. But we've also seen headlines that Planned Parenthood is closing up shop in some states that they've suffered a lot of setbacks recently. Do you feel like they're on the Wayne or are they still a major force to be dealt with?

[Aaron Hawley]

So there's certainly a major political force that I think we need to shed light and truth that every child matters is inherently valuable to God and to society. But I would urge your listeners, if they happen to look at the New York Times report, really, it's an expose on Planned Parenthood. It talks about the terrible conditions not only for women who are coming for abortions, bad health care, bad decision making, but also for the employees, just an organization that is not well run.

[John Bickley]

I can't say I'm surprised to learn those details. Final question. You say we saw some positive signs here for your case in the oral arguments. Do you feel in general that there's momentum on the side of pro lifers in terms of constitutional and legal protections or have we seen some setbacks in recent years?

[Aaron Hawley]

I think we are seeing momentum building. If you think about the Supreme Court's term last year there was a monumental win for parental rights in a case called Mahmood. That case could have come out really narrowly, but instead the court really said that you need to have an opt out school if you're going to teach things that are contrary to religious beliefs. So that was a great win for parents. We saw another win in an ADF case called Medina that states are allowed to defund Planned Parenthood. They can choose other health care centers that provide actual health care instead of mainly abortion. Then in this latest series of cases on API, we have one at the second Circuit, one in the ninth. We just won the second Circuit yesterday. And so it seems to be the sort of recognition that even if you dislike pregnancy care centers, you can't harass them with subpoenas, you can't sue them to stop them from speaking really basic constitutional rights. But it seems to be taking courts to step in and police those boundaries.

[John Bickley]

Erin Hawley, thank you so much for joining us.

[Aaron Hawley]

Thanks for having me.

[John Bickley]

That was Alliance Defending Freedom's Erin Hawley. And this has been a weekend edition of MORNING wire.

Hey, Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. You know, one of the perks about.

[Host/Announcer]

Having four kids that you know about.

[John Bickley]

Is actually getting a direct line to the big man up north.

[Aaron Hawley]

And this year he wants you to.

[Host/Announcer]

Know the best gift that you can.

[Aaron Hawley]

Give someone is the gift of Mint.

[John Bickley]

Mobile's Unlimited Wireless for $15. Now you don't even need to wrap it. Give it a [e-mail] Switch upfront payment.

[Aaron Hawley]

Of $45 for a three month plan, equivalent to $15 per month required new customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes if network's busy, taxes and fees extra. See mintmobile.com.