Unexpected Alliance: ACLU Joins Forces with Pro-Life Centers in Supreme Court Battle Against Democratic AGs

In a twist that defies traditional battle lines, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other left-leaning organizations have thrown their weight behind pro-life pregnancy centers in a high-stakes Supreme Court case, defending their First Amendment rights against aggressive investigations by Democratic attorneys general. This unlikely partnership highlights the broader fight for free speech protections, even as it exposes the tactics used by officials like New Jersey's Matthew Platkin and New York's Letitia James to target centers that offer alternatives to abortion.

The case, First Choice Women's Resource Centers Inc. v. Platkin, centers on a sweeping subpoena issued by Platkin in 2023, demanding donor lists, internal communications, advertisements, and details on medical personnel from the faith-based nonprofit. First Choice, which operates five centers providing free counseling, ultrasounds, and support to women facing unplanned pregnancies, argues the demand is a thinly veiled attempt to intimidate and silence their pro-life message under the guise of consumer fraud enforcement. With no public complaints lodged against them, the centers contend the probe chills their ability to advocate freely, forcing supporters to withdraw for fear of exposure and reprisal.

What makes this development particularly astonishing is the ACLU's involvement. Known for championing reproductive rights and challenging restrictions on abortion access, the ACLU—along with its New Jersey affiliate and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression—filed an amicus brief on August 28, 2025, urging the Supreme Court to allow federal courts to hear such challenges promptly. Their argument: Even an unenforced subpoena targeting protected speech can cause organizations to "clam up" and lose vital backing, creating a tangible First Amendment injury that demands immediate judicial review. They draw parallels to past cases where pre-enforcement challenges were routine, emphasizing that officials from both parties have wielded investigative powers to suppress dissenting views.

Joining the ACLU are other surprising allies, including the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (which supports abortion rights), the Animal Activist Legal Defense Project, and NetChoice—a tech trade group often aligned with progressive causes. These groups warn that unchecked state subpoenas could enable viewpoint discrimination across the ideological spectrum, from animal rights advocates to online platforms. On the other side, Platkin, backed by Planned Parenthood, insists the investigation is legitimate consumer protection, though critics see it as part of a coordinated post-Dobbs strategy to undermine pro-life efforts following the 2022 Supreme Court decision that returned abortion regulation to the states—a ruling made possible by President Trump's judicial appointees.

This New Jersey dispute is emblematic of a nationwide pattern. In New York, Attorney General Letitia James launched a similar offensive in May 2024, suing the national pro-life network Heartbeat International and 11 affiliated pregnancy centers for promoting "abortion pill reversal"—a protocol using progesterone to potentially counteract the effects of mifepristone. James labeled the claims "false and misleading," seeking fines and an injunction to halt the information's dissemination. However, a federal district court in August 2024 issued a preliminary injunction blocking her enforcement, ruling that it violated the centers' free speech rights by censoring content based on viewpoint. James is now appealing to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing the promotions constitute deceptive business practices.

Similar probes have cropped up in states like Washington, Vermont, Connecticut, Delaware, and Illinois, where Democratic AGs have invoked consumer protection laws to scrutinize pregnancy centers' advertising and services. In Vermont, for instance, a 2023 law mandating disclosures about unlicensed facilities was struck down as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. Connecticut's AG faced a setback when a court ruled his investigation into a center's claims lacked evidence of fraud. These efforts often stem from collaborations with abortion advocacy groups like Planned Parenthood, which provide "legal theories" to justify the subpoenas.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear First Choice v. Platkin in June 2025, with oral arguments potentially set for the fall term. The justices will decide whether federal courts can intervene before state enforcement actions, a question that could shield nonprofits from drawn-out state proceedings designed to drain resources and stifle speech. Building on the 2021 Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta decision, which invalidated broad donor disclosure mandates as First Amendment violations, a favorable ruling could curb these investigative tactics nationwide.

For pro-life advocates, this case represents a critical defense against what they view as weaponized government power. Pregnancy centers, which outnumber abortion clinics three-to-one and serve millions annually with free resources, have faced escalating attacks since Dobbs—including vandalism, firebombings, and legislative restrictions. Yet, the entry of the ACLU and its cohorts into the fray offers a rare glimmer of cross-ideological consensus on free speech principles, proving that even fierce opponents can unite against overreach when core liberties are at stake.

As the Court deliberates, the outcome could reshape how states police charitable organizations, ensuring that faith-based groups like First Choice can continue their mission without fear of reprisal. This unexpected coalition sends a clear message: When it comes to safeguarding the First Amendment, alliances can form in the most improbable places, potentially delivering a major win for free expression and the pro-life movement.