NJ Attorney General Hit With Ethics Complaints for Targeting Pro Life Pregnancy Centers Without a Single Complaint

Ethics Complaints Filed Against Former New Jersey Attorney General for Targeting Pro Life Pregnancy Centers

A Washington, D.C. based nonprofit organization has filed three ethics complaints against former New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin and his chief counsel Sundeep Iyer over their treatment of pro life pregnancy care centers.

The Center to Advance Security in America (CASA) submitted the complaints on Tuesday to the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics in Trenton and the Attorney Grievance Committee Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Judicial Department of New York.

The complaints center on arguments made before the U.S. Supreme Court in December 2025 in the case First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc. v. Matthew J. Platkin. The case involves whether New Jersey could force First Choice, which operates a network of pro life pregnancy centers in the state, to disclose its donor lists and other information about supporters under threat of legal penalties.

During oral arguments, Justice Clarence Thomas questioned whether the state had any complaints forming the basis of concern about First Choice's fundraising activities. Iyer acknowledged the office had received no complaints about the specific pregnancy center.

"We haven't had complaints about this specific crisis pregnancy center."

Sundeep Iyer, Chief Counsel to the New Jersey Attorney General, told the Supreme Court.

Iyer argued that investigations can begin "in the absence of complaints where they have a reason to suspect" wrongdoing. CASA alleges that Platkin and Iyer violated the First Amendment rights of First Choice when they opted to investigate the pro life organization "for no apparent reason."

New Jersey AG Faces Professional Conduct Violations Over Pro Life Pregnancy Center Investigation

According to the complaints, the attorney general's office "decided to investigate a pregnancy care center for no apparent reason other than a general suspicion that pregnancy care centers operate incorrectly" with "no complaints" leading to the investigation.

CASA accuses both officials of violating the Rules of Professional Conduct for New Jersey and New York, specifically for "knowingly depriving someone of their constitutional rights."

Curtis Schube, CASA's Research and Policy director, stated:

"It's our First Amendment right to be able to donate to places like this."

CASA cited the 2021 Supreme Court decision Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta regarding donor privacy protections. Platkin stepped down as attorney general on January 20, 2026, and was replaced by Jennifer Davenport. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled in the case, with a decision expected by June 2026.

The Crusader's Opinion

Let's call this what it is: a government official weaponized his office to intimidate a pregnancy center that dares to offer women an alternative to abortion. No complaints. No evidence of wrongdoing. Just a fishing expedition designed to punish people for their beliefs. This is the same government that tells you it champions "choice" while systematically targeting organizations that actually give women one. If a Christian attorney general launched an investigation into Planned Parenthood with zero complaints, the media firestorm would be visible from space. The double standard is not just hypocrisy; it is persecution with a legal veneer.

Take Action

• Support First Choice: Learn about their work and how to help at firstchoicewrc.org
• Donate: Support organizations defending religious liberty and pregnancy care centers through www.TheShepherdsShield.org and Alliance Defending Freedom
• Contact Your Representatives: Call your U.S. Senators and House members and demand legislation protecting donor privacy and nonprofit free speech rights
• Share This Story: Post this article on your social media and ask why state governments are allowed to target pro life organizations without a single complaint
• Pray: Pray for the Supreme Court justices as they consider this case, that they uphold First Amendment protections for all Americans regardless of their beliefs