Supreme Court Unanimously Grants Standing to Challenge New Jersey Subpoena in Nonprofit Case

U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. New Jersey, concluding that a pro-life religious organization had Article III standing to challenge the constitutionality of a subpoena from the New Jersey Attorney General demanding information about the nonprofit's financial supporters.

Reason reported that Justice Gorsuch wrote the opinion for the Court in this case.

The Court reversed the judgment of the Third Circuit in First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. New Jersey and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Three of the four lower court judges who considered First Choice Women's Resource Centers v.

New Jersey reached the opposite conclusion from the Supreme Court. New Jersey presents a narrow question of whether the organization may proceed with its federal lawsuit, not the merits.

' Standing requires three elements: injury in fact, causation, and redressability. Injury in fact must be concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent. A litigant may bring a pre-enforcement suit seeking prospective relief against government officials if it faces a credible threat of enforcement.

First Choice argued that the Attorney General's subpoena caused an actual and ongoing injury to its First Amendment rights by deterring donors from associating with it. First Choice argued that it faces an imminent future injury due to a credible threat that the Attorney General would seek to enforce the subpoena in state court if the group failed to comply.

Since the 1950s, the Supreme Court has held that official demands like the Attorney General's subpoena burden the exercise of First Amendment rights.

These holdings stem from precedents cited in the opinion, including Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA, 606 U. U.S. 100, 110–111 (2025), and Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U. U.S. 149, 161, 164–167 (2014).

New Jersey before deciding Louisiana v. Callais. Separately, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision narrowing the application of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in the case Louisiana v.

Callais.