First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport · ¶48

This conclusion does not follow from its premises. “[T]he value of a sword of Damocles is that it hangs—not that it drops.” Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U. S. 134, 231 (1974) (Marshall, J., dissenting). Much the same holds true for the subpoena before us. It “commanded” First Choice to produce private donor information. Pet. App. 89a. And it warned that failure to comply “may render [the group] liable for contempt of Court” or “other penalties.” Id., at 90a. Whether that command and those penalties were immediately enforceable or depended on subsequent court action, the most First Choice could say to existing and prospective donors after receiving Mr. Platkin's subpoena was that their privacy might be protected—or it might not. Objectively reasonable people interested both in their privacy and in associating with First Choice would “not lightly disregard” such a distinct possibility of…

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