Washington, D.C. – History repeats itself, as shown by the unfortunate similarities between First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin and NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson (1958). The people are different, but the tactics used by government officials to silence citizens remain the same. The U.S. Supreme Court granted review of the petition by First Choice Women’s Resource Centers and will consider it in the term beginning in October.

The Institute for Free Speech filed an amicus brief in the case identifying key similarities between the two cases and urging the Court to rule in favor of the group.

Notably, both cases feature a “rogue attorney general [who] wields its broad power to punish an ideological enemy and try to drive it out of the state. And in both cases, the First Amendment violation on associational privacy is clear.”  

In First Choice, New Jersey’s attorney general issued an ideologically targeted and unjustified subpoena demanding extensive documentation from the nonprofit in an attempt to force it to identify its members to state officials. Similarly, in the 1950s, Alabama’s attorney general demanded that the NAACP hand over to the state documentation of its members and donors. The NAACP refused to comply due to fears of potential harassment of its members. That case, NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson (1958), would set a key precedent to protect the First Amendment right to associational privacy. 

The similarities don’t stop there. The Institute’s brief explains how Alabama, for eight years, obstructed “not just the NAACP’s ability to operate in the state, but also its ability to obtain meaningful judicial relief.” Here, New Jersey hopes to keep First Choice in “perpetual limbo because of the possibility that its donors will be disclosed, unable to seek relief in federal court for maybe years to come.” This strategy by New Jersey is a thinly veiled attempt to keep First Choice from operating and serving its mission. 

“Federal law leaves no doubt about the unconstitutionality of the New Jersey Attorney General’s attempt at obtaining the names of First Choice’s donors,” says the brief. The Institute recommends that the Court reverse the previous judgment, thereby ending attempts to manipulate the court process and allowing First Choice Women’s Resource Centers to pursue its relief. 

To read the brief, click here. To learn more about the case and read the Institute’s previous filings, click here. 

About the Institute for Free Speech

The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment.