First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport · ¶51

But even setting aside the question whether a Takings Clause rule might be properly transposed into the First Amendment context, the rule Mr. Platkin invokes has little purchase here. He “committed to a position” when he issued his subpoena demanding donor records. To be sure, he remained free to narrow the scope of his demands later, and he might fail to secure a judicial order compelling production. But none of this means he failed to commit to a position. Nor does any of this undo the “inevitable” injury First Choice experienced to its associational rights when Mr. Plat- kin issued his subpoena—an injury that it continues to experience so long as the subpoena remains outstanding. Buck ley, 424 U. S., at 65.

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