First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport · ¶53

This analogy works no better than its predecessors. First, the plaintiffs in Reisman and Claire Furnace did not allege a present injury from the subpoena itself, but complained only of future injuries they might face if a court enforced the subpoena. See Reisman, 375 U. S., at 442, 449– 450; Claire Furnace, 274 U. S., at 165–166. Because a person in those plaintiffs' shoes “would suffer no injury while testing” the subpoena in federal court, we were able to “[f]in[d] that the remedy specified by Congress,” i. e., review upon enforcement, “works no injustice and suffers no constitutional invalidity.” Reisman, 375 U. S., at 449–450. The same conclusion does not follow in cases like this one, where a plaintiff suffers ongoing injuries from the subpoena itself. See Media Matters for Am. v. Paxton, 138 F. 4th 563, 582– 583 (CADC 2025).

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