First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport · ¶58

This argument misapprehends the Article III standing inquiry. A government that takes three limbs but spares the last imposes an injury all the same. So too here. The question before us isn't how badly the Attorney General has burdened First Choice's associational rights; the question is whether he has burdened those rights at all. And by effectively restricting how First Choice may interact privately with its donors, the subpoena did just that. Were the rule otherwise, the government could channel the ability of disfavored groups to associate through narrow and state-preferred forms. In doing so, it could achieve exactly what the First Amendment forbids, marginalizing dissident voices and reshaping the marketplace of ideas to its pleasure, all while evading any legal challenge to its actions. None of that is consistent with our Constitution, which prohibits “subtle . . . interference”…

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