Hello. This is Attorney RJ Deakin reading the Supreme Court of the United States opinion syllabus in First Choice Women's Resource Centers versus Davenport, Attorney General of New Jersey, Certiari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Argued December 2nd, 2025, and decided April 29th, 2026. First Choice Women's Resource Centers Incorporated is a religious nonprofit organization that has provided counseling and resources to pregnant women in New Jersey since 1985. Believing that life begins at conception, the group does not provide abortions or refer clients to others for abortions. In 2022, New Jersey's Attorney General established a reproductive rights strikeforce that issued a consumer alert accusing groups like First Choice of seeking to prevent people from accessing reproductive health care by providing false or misleading abortion information. The Attorney General served a subpoena on First Choice, commanding the group to produce 28 categories of documents, including documents reflecting the names, phone numbers, addresses, and places of employment of all individuals who had made donations to First Choice by any means other than through one specific web page. Effectively, that demand required First Choice to provide personal information about donors who gave through two other websites, through the group's various social media pages, by mail, in person, or by any other means. The subpoena warned twice that failure to comply may render the group liable for contempt of court and other penalties. First Choice filed suit in Federal District Court under 42 USC Section 1983, seeking to prevent the Attorney General from enforcing the document demands and arguing that the demand for donor information violated its First Amendment rights. First Choice alleged that its inability to guarantee its donors' anonymity in the face of the Attorney General's demands injured the group by discouraging donors from associating with it. The district court denied First Choice's motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed its complaint, holding that the group failed to state a justiciable claim as a matter of law because absent any state court order compelling production, First Choice had yet to suffer an injury from the subpoena and thus lacked Article III standing. A divided panel of the Third Circuit affirmed. The decision below is reversed and remanded, and Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the court. First Choice has established a present injury to its First Amendment associational rights sufficient to curtain confer Article III standing. Article III's standing requirement consists of three elements injury and fact, causation, and redressability, citing Diamond Alternative Energy versus EPA. This case centers on injury on the injury and fact element, which requires an injury that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent. Here, the Attorney General's subpoena has caused First Choice to suffer an ongoing injury to its First Amendment rights. The First Amendment guarantees all Americans the rights to speak, worship, publish, assemble, and petition their government freely. Each of these rights necessarily carries with it a corresponding right to associate with others. See Americans for Prosperity Foundation versus Bonta. Associational rights carry special significance for political, social, religious, and other minorities, protecting dissident expression from marginalization or outright suppression by the majority. Roberts vs. United States JCs. This court has long held that compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may constitute as effective a restraint on freedom of association as more direct forms of suppression. CNAACP vs. Alabama XRL Patterson, and thus has repeatedly subjected demands for private donor or member information to heightened First Amendment scrutiny. Throughout, the court has recognized the critical role privacy plays in preserving protected association, and it has acknowledged that official demands for private donor information inevitably carry with them a deterrent effect on the exercise of First Amendment rights. That's uh Buckley versus Falio. Against this backdrop, First Choice has established a present injury to its First Amendment associational rights and therefore has standing. An injury in fact arises when a defendant burdens a plaintiff's constitutional rights, and government demands for a charity's private donor information have just that effect. Such demands inevitably discourage association with groups engaged in protected First Amendment advocacy and encourage groups to cease or modify protected advocacy. The government disfavors. All this occurs not just when a demand is enforced, but when it is made and for as long as it remains outstanding. The Attorney General's three reasons why First Choice has not suffered any injury sufficient to maintain this lawsuit each fails. One, it does not matter that the subpoenas issued by the Attorney General are purportedly non-self-executing, such that any legal duty to produce records arises only when a state court agrees to enforce the subpoena. Whether the subpoena's demands and penalties were immediately enforceable or contingent on future court action, donors would reasonably fear disclosure and hesitate to associate with, and a reasonable recipient of the Attorney General's subpoena would be induced to trim its protected advocacy, knowing it now stands in the government's crosshairs. This court's precedents do not impose, and in fact foreclose, a rule that would nonetheless require first choice to await a state court order enforcing the subpoena before the group could challenge the Attorney General's demands in federal court. Number two, it is of no moment that the subpoena allows first choice to solicit funds through one specific website without disclosing the identities of those who donate through it. By restricting how First Choice may interact privately with its donors, the Attorney General subpoena burdened First Choice's associational rights. Were the rule otherwise, the government could channel the ability of disfavored groups to associate through narrow and state preferred forms and achieve exactly what the First Amendment forbids. three, it makes no difference that a state court may soon, and with the Attorney General's assent, issue a protective order requiring the Attorney General to keep confidential any documents first choice produces pursuant to the subpoena. Putting aside the uncertainties about any prospective protective order, demands for private donor information burden First Amendment rights even if there is no disclosure to the public. See Shelton versus Tucker. And official demand for private donor information is enough to discourage reasonable individuals from associating with a group and to discourage groups from expressing dissident views. So long as the demand remains outstanding, the pressure to avoid ties and speech that might displease officials demanding disclosure can be constant and heavy. The decision below is reversed and remanded. Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion before a unanimous court. Thanks for listening. And uh I did uh again want to point out uh take a look in your podcast source and see that there is a um podcast that is doing AI slop readings of the uh uh the opinion syllabus like we are, um except they're only posting certain ones. So if there's anything you can do to uh to uh notify your podcast source of that uh that problem there, go ahead and do that. I appreciate you. And uh we'll catch you down the road. Uh if you want to talk to me, it's roadscholar80 at gmail.com. You probably know it by now.