Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Davenport
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Davenport
Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-781_pok0.pdf
Case background
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc., is a religious nonprofit that has
provided counseling and resources to pregnant women in New Jersey since 1985,
and does not provide or refer clients for abortions. In 2022, New Jersey’s
Attorney General established a “Reproductive Rights Strike Force” and served
First Choice with an investigatory subpoena demanding twenty-eight categories of
documents, including the names, addresses, and other personal information of most
of its donors. First Choice challenged the subpoena in federal court under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 as a violation of its First Amendment rights, while the Attorney
General sued to enforce the subpoena in state court. The federal district court
held the constitutional claims were not ripe, and a divided Third Circuit panel
affirmed per curiam, reasoning that First Choice could raise those claims in
state court.
Questions Presented
Holding
First Choice has established a present injury to its First Amendment associational
rights sufficient to confer Article III standing. The Attorney General’s subpoena,
which demands disclosure of First Choice’s donors, has caused an ongoing,
concrete injury to the group’s associational rights — an injury that is present
now and does not depend on the outcome of the state enforcement proceeding.
The Court
Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
What this episode contains
This episode is an AI-narrated reading of the majority opinion in
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Davenport, written by Justice Gorsuch.
AI disclosure: The voice in this episode is AI-generated, using a machine
learning model styled to loosely resemble the authoring justice. Tone,
inflection, pacing, and emphasis are artifacts of the model and should not be
attributed to Justice Gorsuch. The text being read is the Court’s published
majority opinion, lightly adapted to improve readability for the spoken format.
View all episodes
By So OrderedOpinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-781_pok0.pdf
Case background
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc., is a religious nonprofit that has
provided counseling and resources to pregnant women in New Jersey since 1985,
and does not provide or refer clients for abortions. In 2022, New Jersey’s
Attorney General established a “Reproductive Rights Strike Force” and served
First Choice with an investigatory subpoena demanding twenty-eight categories of
documents, including the names, addresses, and other personal information of most
of its donors. First Choice challenged the subpoena in federal court under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 as a violation of its First Amendment rights, while the Attorney
General sued to enforce the subpoena in state court. The federal district court
held the constitutional claims were not ripe, and a divided Third Circuit panel
affirmed per curiam, reasoning that First Choice could raise those claims in
state court.
Questions Presented
Holding
First Choice has established a present injury to its First Amendment associational
rights sufficient to confer Article III standing. The Attorney General’s subpoena,
which demands disclosure of First Choice’s donors, has caused an ongoing,
concrete injury to the group’s associational rights — an injury that is present
now and does not depend on the outcome of the state enforcement proceeding.
The Court
Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
What this episode contains
This episode is an AI-narrated reading of the majority opinion in
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Davenport, written by Justice Gorsuch.
AI disclosure: The voice in this episode is AI-generated, using a machine
learning model styled to loosely resemble the authoring justice. Tone,
inflection, pacing, and emphasis are artifacts of the model and should not be
attributed to Justice Gorsuch. The text being read is the Court’s published
majority opinion, lightly adapted to improve readability for the spoken format.