First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport · ¶22

Before us, First Choice advances two arguments for why it can satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement. First, the group submits that the Attorney General's subpoena itself—and specifically its demand for donor information—has caused it to suffer an actual and ongoing injury to its First Amendment rights by deterring donors from associating with it. Second, First Choice contends that it faces an imminent future injury because with the subpoena came a credible threat that the Attorney General would seek to enforce it in state court if the group failed to comply. For our purposes, it suffces to address only the first theory as it is enough to carry the day.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.