Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-24-03124/USCOURTS-ca3-24-03124-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 24-3124

_______________

FIRST CHOICE WOMEN’S RESOURCE CENTERS, INC.,

Appellant

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY

_______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. No. 3:23-cv-23076)

District Judge: Honorable Michael A. Shipp

_______________

Argued: December 10, 2024

Before: BIBAS, CHUNG, and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Filed: December 12, 2024)

_______________

OPINION*

_______________

Erin M. Hawley

Lincoln D. Wilson [ARGUED]

ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM

440 First Street NW

Suite 600

Washington, DC 20001

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 24-3124 Document: 55 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/12/2024
2

Erik Baptist

Dalton A. Nichols

ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM

44180 Riverside Parkway

Lansdowne, VA 20176

Counsel for Appellant

Jeremy Feigenbaum [ARGUED]

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY

25 Market Street

Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex

P.O. Box 112

Trenton, NJ 08625

Meghan Musso

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY

124 Halsey Street

Newark, NJ 07101

Counsel for Appellee

Olivia F. Summers

REGENT UNIVERSITY

1000 Regent University Drive

Virginia Beach, VA 23464

Counsel for Amici Pennsylvania Pregnancy Wellness Collaborative, New Jersey

Right to Life, and National Institute of Family & Life Advocates in Support of

Appellant

Preston Carter

Marcus Waterman

GIVENS PURSLEY

P.O. Box 2720

Boise, ID 83701

Ilya Shapiro

MANHATTAN INSTITUTE

52 Vanderbilt Avenue

New York, NY 10017

Counsel for Amicus Manhattan Institute in Support of Appellant

Case: 24-3124 Document: 55 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/12/2024
3

Preston Carter

Marcus Waterman

GIVENS PURSLEY

P.O. Box 2720

Boise, ID 83701

Counsel for Amici Institute for Free Speech and Religious Freedom Institute in

Support of Appellant

PER CURIAM†

First Choice sued the Attorney General of New Jersey to prevent him from enforcing 

a non-self-enforcing investigatory subpoena that requested, among other things, First 

Choice’s donor records and identities. The case has proceeded in concurrent litigation in 

both state and federal court, and it has traveled up and down both court systems. It is now 

before us on the question of whether First Choice’s constitutional claims are ripe. 

We review the District Court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de 

novo. Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Price, 501 F.3d 271, 275 (3d Cir. 2007). At the pleadings 

stage, we “accept as true all well-pled factual allegations in the complaint and all 

reasonable inferences that can be drawn from them.” Huertas v. Galaxy Asset Mgmt., 641 

F.3d 28, 32 (3d Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“A foundational principle of Article III is that an actual controversy must exist not 

only at the time the complaint is filed, but through all stages of the litigation.” Trump v. 

New York, 592 U.S. 125, 131 (2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs must 

demonstrate standing, including “an injury that is concrete, particularized, and imminent 

† Judge Bibas dissents and would find First Choice’s constitutional claims ripe because 

he believes that this case is indistinguishable from Americans for Prosperity Foundation

v. Bonta, 594 U.S. 595 (2021).

Case: 24-3124 Document: 55 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/12/2024
4

rather than conjectural or hypothetical.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Claims 

must also be ripe, both to be encompassed within Article III and as a matter of prudence. 

Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 157 n.5, 167 (2014).

Having considered the parties’ arguments, we do not think First Choice’s claims are 

ripe. It can continue to assert its constitutional claims in state court as that litigation 

unfolds; the parties have been ordered by the state court to negotiate to narrow the 

subpoena’s scope; they have agreed to so negotiate; the Attorney General has conceded 

that he seeks donor information from only two websites; and First Choice’s current 

affidavits do not yet show enough of an injury. We believe that the state court will 

adequately adjudicate First Choice’s constitutional claims, and we expect that any future 

federal litigation between these parties would likewise adequately adjudicate them. See 

Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455, 458 (1990); Bonta, 594 U.S. 595. Therefore, we affirm the 

judgment of the District Court dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Case: 24-3124 Document: 55 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/12/2024