Justice Thomas Gets New Jersey to Admit that It Hasn’t Received Any Public Complaints to Justify Its Subpoena Against a State-Based Pro-Life Center

Thomas: “Did you have complaints that formed the basis of your concern about the fundraising activities here?”
IYER: “We certainly had complaints about crisis pregnancy centers.”
Thomas: “No, about this crisis pregnancy center.”
IYER: “So I think we’ve been clear from the outset that we haven’t had complaints about this specific —“
Thomas: “So you had no basis to think that they were deceiving any of their contributors?”
IYER: “I don’t think — I don’t think that’s correct, your honor. I think we had carefully canvassed all of the public information that is provided on the website of First Choice in making a determination that we wanted to initiate an investigation.”
Thomas: “But you had no factual basis?”
IYER: “I don’t think that’s true, your honor. I think, for example, you could take a look at a comparison between the donation page for First Choice that we have carved out from the very beginning.”
Thomas: “But you had no complaints?”
IYER: “We had no complaints, but the state governments, federal government, initiate investigations all the time in the absence of complaints where they have a reason to suspect that there could be potential issues of legal compliance. And look, it could be the case, based on our investigation, when we look at documents, when we look at information, that ultimately will determine that First Choice isn’t liable for any violation of law.”
Thomas: “Well, it just seemed to be a burdensome way to find out whether someone has a confusing website. But you said earlier that you did not agree with their characterization of why they were being put to this. And it would seem that the obvious way to refute that was to say we had 100 complaints. But you say you have no complaints, but rather you looked at the website and their materials and you think it could have been misleading. So why is your characterization any better than theirs?”
IYER: “So, your honor, I’d point you to the Turner Declaration, which is at pages 400 to 401 of the Joint Appendix, which lays out the predicate for the state’s investigation of First Choice. And we had concerns in four buckets. We had concerns about potentially misleading donors. We had concerns about the unlicensed practice of medicine. We had concerns about patient privacy practices. And we had concerns about potentially misleading or untrue medical statements. So I think we had a more than ample basis to initiate this investigation. And again —”
Thomas: “But you had no complaints.”
IYER: “We had no complaints. But I think that, your honor, that goes at most to the merits. That doesn’t go to the standing —”