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 December 2, 2025, the Court heard oral argument in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport. The session drew notable attention when the Solicitor General’s office participated as amicus curiae, with divided argument time granted to the government.
The case arises from a New Jersey Attorney General investigation into First Choice Women’s Resource Centers. The Attorney General issued a state investigatory demand seeking documents and information. First Choice filed a federal suit, arguing the demand chilled its First Amendment rights.
The question presented goes to a recurring tension between federal jurisdiction and principles of comity toward state enforcement actions. The petitioner argues that once an objectively reasonable First Amendment chill is shown, a federal court’s jurisdiction cannot be displaced by the mere existence of a parallel state process. The federal government’s decision to seek argument time signals that the administration views this jurisdictional question as having broad implications beyond the specific context of crisis pregnancy centers.
The Court’s resolution will affect how organizations across the political spectrum respond to state investigatory demands. A ruling for petitioner would allow federal courts to serve as an early forum for First Amendment challenges to such demands. A ruling for respondent would reinforce state enforcement proceedings as the primary venue. With 52 amicus briefs filed, the case reflects genuine disagreement among courts and commentators about where these disputes belong.