If you are a regular reader of State AG Insights, you know that we have previously blogged about First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin (now Davenport, with the end of Attorney General Platkin’s tenure and Attorney General Davenport’s recent appointment), a case concerning the ability of a crisis pregnancy center to challenge an administrative subpoena issued by the New Jersey Attorney General. On April 29, 2026, the Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport, No. 24-781, ruling in favor of First Choice and reversing the Third Circuit. As a result, recipients of state Attorney General subpoenas may now pursue constitutional challenges in federal court immediately instead of waiting for the subpoena or other administrative demand to be enforced by a state court.
In an opinion authored by Justice Gorsuch, the Court held that First Choice has Article III standing to challenge the New Jersey Attorney General's investigatory subpoena in federal court because the subpoena caused a present injury to the organization's First Amendment associational rights. The Court relied on Civil Rights-era precedents holding that government demands for private donor information “inevitabl[y]” deter the exercise of First Amendment rights. Such demands discourage association with advocacy groups and pressure groups to curtail disfavored speech—effects that arise the moment a demand is made, not just when it’s enforced.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court rejected each of the Attorney General's three counterarguments. First, it held that the “non-self-executing” nature of the subpoena was irrelevant: donors would reasonably fear disclosure and a reasonable recipient could be induced to trim its protected advocacy regardless of whether enforcement required subsequent court action. Second, permitting First Choice to solicit funds anonymously through one specific website did not cure the injury, because limiting how an organization interacts with its donors burdens associational rights—the government may not confine disfavored groups to narrow, state-preferred channels. Third, the Court held that a prospective protective order requiring confidential treatment of produced documents would not eliminate the constitutional harm, because official demands for private donor information burden First Amendment rights “[e]ven if there [is] no disclosure to the general public.”
The decision carries significant implications for state Attorney General investigations. Most directly, it confirms that recipients of state administrative subpoenas or civil investigative demands (CIDs) seeking sensitive associational information need not wait for a state court enforcement order before obtaining federal judicial review. This removes what had been a substantial procedural barrier—historically, challenging an AG subpoena has been an uphill battle given broad statutory authority and the advantage AGs tend to enjoy in home-state proceedings. Now, federal courts have a clearer framework for evaluating whether a CID itself creates a cognizable constitutional injury, opening the door to earlier federal intervention in state investigations.
It bears emphasis, however, that the Court resolved only the threshold standing question and did not reach the merits of First Choice's First Amendment claims. In other words, the decision does not resolve the underlying constitutional question—it simply makes the claim viable in federal court. The case has been remanded for further proceedings, and the district court must still determine whether the Attorney General's subpoena survives heightened First Amendment scrutiny on the merits. How lower courts apply First Choice's standing analysis to other state investigatory demands—and how AGs adapt their enforcement strategies in response—will be closely watched developments in the months ahead.
To view Foley Hoag's State AG Insights blog click here
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
