While the Supreme Court is set to issue some of its biggest decisions in cases argued this term, the justices are also filling out the calendar for the next term that starts in October. One of the latest additions came Monday, with an abortion-related appeal brought by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal group that has found success at the like-minded Roberts Court.
The justices control much of their docket, so the decision of which cases to accept or reject is an important part of the court’s work. It takes four justices to grant review on the court of six Republican appointees and three Democratic appointees.
The new abortion-related appeal is called First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin investigated the anti-abortion group for potentially misleading donors and potential clients about the health services it provides. The group wants to press a First Amendment claim against turning over donor information and sought to pursue its claim in federal court. The Supreme Court agreed to consider whether the group may do so or whether the matter must proceed in state court.
Unsuccessfully opposing high court review, Platkin’s office noted that a federal appeals court already said the group failed to show any chill of its constitutional rights stemming from his subpoena.
A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit said in December that the group’s constitutional claim wasn’t ripe for federal review and that it could proceed in state court. Judge Stephanos Bibas dissented because the Trump appointee found the case “indistinguishable” from a 2021 Supreme Court case called Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta. In that case, the high court’s Republican-appointed majority said California couldn’t make charities report their major donors’ identities. ADF appealed to the justices after the 3rd Circuit rejection, citing the Americans for Prosperity case and Bibas’ dissent.
First Choice’s appeal joins another ADF case already set to be heard next term with similar themes, called Chiles v. Salazar. That other appeal involves the constitutionality of Colorado’s ban on so-called conversion therapy to try to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity. ADF’s successful petition in that case started like this: “Kaley Chiles is a licensed counselor who helps people by talking with them. A practicing Christian, Chiles believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex.” Unsuccessfully opposing review of Chiles’ petition, Colorado officials said they want to protect children, while Chiles wants an exemption to provide treatment that falls below the accepted standard of care. Monday’s addition of the First Choice appeal to Chiles’ free speech claim puts multiple cases on next term’s docket that could continue the court’s backing of conservative Christian aims through the First Amendment, over state opposition that they’re just looking for legal loopholes. We should learn by this time next year what the court calls it. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.
Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro," a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.
Latest Post
Recommended
