First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport · ¶50
Failing in one analogy, Mr. Platkin attempts another. This time he points to Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco, 594 U. S. 474 (2021) (per curiam). In that case, we explained that a plaintiff normally cannot sue in federal court over an alleged regulatory taking until local land use authorities “commi[t] to a position” regarding how “the regulations at issue apply to the particular land in question.” Id., at 478–479 (internal quotation marks omitted). Applying the same logic here, Mr. Platkin insists, means that First Choice should not be allowed to challenge his subpoena in federal court until state court proceedings have run their course. Until then, after all, his non-self-executing subpoena is “subject to negotiation” and it remains uncertain which of its demands will be enforced. Brief for Respondent 25, 27.Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.