(LifeSiteNews) — Authorities in New York and New Jersey should look into potential legal ethics violations by attorneys for the Garden State who targeted pro-lifers, according to new complaints.

The Center to Advance Security in America recently filed three complaints against former NJ Attorney General Matthew Platkin and Sundeep Lyer for comments they made in front of the Supreme Court.

The organization “filed three complaints on Tuesday with the Office of Attorney Ethics of Trenton, New Jersey, and the Attorney Grievance Committee Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Judicial Department of New York,” according to the Christian Post, which first reviewed the allegations.

The complaints stem from a Supreme Court case called First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Matthew Platkin.

Heard in December 2025, the case concerns a question over whether the state or the federal court system has jurisdiction over a First Amendment claim – but it comes due to a harassment campaign launched by pro-abortion Attorney General Platkin, a Democrat.

Platkin, who admitted to having no evidence to request donation records, instigated a wide sweeping request for donor information from a pro-life pregnancy center. He alleged that he wanted to see if donors had been misled about the organization.

The Christian Post reported:

During oral arguments, Justice Clarence Thomas had asked Iyer if the state attorney general’s office had “complaints that formed the basis of your concern about the fundraising activities” of First Choice.

Iyer admitted that “we haven’t had complaints about this specific crisis pregnancy center” but added that state and federal governments “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.”

CASA accuses Iyer of possibly violating the Rules of Professional Conduct for New Jersey and New York, while Platkin was accused of possibly violating the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct.

“Platkin and Iyer decided to investigate a pregnancy care center for no apparent reason other than a general suspicion that pregnancy care centers operate incorrectly,” a complaint sent to New Jersey officials stated. “No complaints led to the investigation, yet they chose to probe into the organization and its donors.”

The complaint urged an investigation and proportionate discipline.

“The office doesn’t have a comment,” the New Jersey attorney general’s office stated in an unsigned email.

LifeSiteNews asked about the allegations and any steps to ensure subpoenas comply with state and federal law.

As previously reported by LifeSiteNews, the case has drawn bipartisan interest due to concerns about investigations into donor records and how they could be weaponized by both political parties.

Alliance Defending Freedom represented the pregnancy centers at the Supreme Court.

“Because revealing one’s membership or support for an advocacy group tells the world about a person’s most deeply held beliefs, the Supreme Court has held that donors have a constitutional right to anonymously support causes,” attorney Erin Hawley wrote in a summary for USA TODAY.

The pro-abortion ACLU took a similar line of argument.

“Even before they’re enforced, law enforcement subpoenas seeking sensitive donor information threaten to scare away supporters essential to any nonprofit’s work,” Brian Hauss stated in a news release for the left-wing group. “At a time when government officials throughout the country abuse regulatory powers to punish their ideological opponents, federal courts must remain a venue in which people can vindicate their First Amendment rights.”

The ACLU of New Jersey acknowledged its different views on the killing of innocent babies in the womb but said it supports the centers’ rights.

“While the ACLU of New Jersey advocates for different policy outcomes than the plaintiff in this case, we are on the same page that investigatory subpoenas seeking sensitive information put all advocacy at risk,” Jeanne LoCicero, legal director of the ACLU of New Jersey,” said in the news release. “Federal court should remain open to anyone who believes their First Amendment rights are being violated, regardless of viewpoint.”