Case: First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc. v. Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General of New Jersey, No. 24-781
Lower Court: Third Circuit
Docketed: 2025-01-24
Status: Granted
Question Presented: Where the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, is a federal court in a first-filed action deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court?
On March 2, 2026, counsel for respondent filed a letter pursuant to Rule 35.3, supplementing the record after oral argument. That filing follows December 2, 2025 argument in which petitioner Erin M. Hawley argued for First Choice, joined by an assistant to the Solicitor General appearing as amicus in support. The Trump administration's decision to participate on petitioner's side, granted by the Court on November 10, 2025, signals the federal government's interest in limiting state investigatory authority over organizations asserting First Amendment rights.
The underlying dispute arose when the New Jersey Attorney General issued a civil investigative demand to First Choice Women's Resource Centers, a network of pregnancy resource centers. First Choice filed a preemptive federal suit, arguing the demand chilled its First Amendment speech and associational rights. The Third Circuit held that federal courts lacked jurisdiction, reasoning that any First Amendment challenge had to be resolved through state enforcement proceedings.
The legal question is whether a demonstrated "objective chill" of First Amendment rights is sufficient to keep a first-filed federal action alive, or whether abstention doctrines require the party to litigate those rights in state court instead. The 52 amicus briefs reflect how much turns on the answer. A ruling for First Choice would make federal courts more accessible to organizations resisting state investigatory demands on speech grounds.
The broader stakes extend well beyond pregnancy centers. Any organization subject to a state subpoena who claims expressive or associational injury would benefit from a clear federal forum. The Court's eventual opinion will likely clarify the relationship between abstention principles and First Amendment standing doctrine, areas that have generated persistent uncertainty in the lower courts.