First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Davenport
The Court ruled that federal courts can review constitutional challenges to state investigative subpoenas—particularly when those allegedly chill First Amendment rights such as donor association and advocacy.
146 S. Ct. 1114 · No. 24-781 · 2025 term · Roberts Court
Decided Apr 29, 2026 · argued Dec 2, 2025
Judicial power · Standing to sue: direct injury
Majority opinion: Neil Gorsuch
The voteMajority
9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Reversed and remanded. First Choice Women’s Resource Centers won.
What this ruling means
Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
First Choice Women Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport, 608 U.S. ___ (2026), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that federal courts can review constitutional challenges to state investigative subpoenas—particularly when those allegedly chill First Amendment rights such as donor association and advocacy. That sort of claim can satisfy the Article III standing requirement.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their provisional Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2025 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(9)
Neil GorsuchWrote the majority opinion
Sonia SotomayorJoined the majority
Ketanji JacksonJoined the majority
Elena KaganJoined the majority
John RobertsJoined the majority
Brett KavanaughJoined the majority
Amy BarrettJoined the majority
Samuel AlitoJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The 2025 scores are provisional. The official Martin–Quinn release does not cover this term yet, so the scores are copied from Lee Epstein, Andrew D. Martin & Michael J. Nelson, Provisional Data Report on the U.S. Supreme Court's 2025 Term, Table 3.1 (scores by Kevin Quinn), published 2026-06-30. They will be replaced by the official scores when those come out, and may change. The median line is the middle of these nine scores.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- First Choice Women’s Resource CentersReligious organization, institution, or person
- Respondent
- DavenportState department or agency (New Jersey)
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 1 (case or controversy requirement)
- Kind of law
- Constitution
- Decided by
- Judicial review (state level)
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Apr 29, 2026DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: reversed and remanded. First Choice Women’s Resource Centers won.
- Dec 2, 2025ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit: affirmed, with a dissent.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the New Jersey U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
13 other argued cases since 1946 on standing to sue: direct injury, newest first.
- Carney v. Adams141 S. Ct. 493Dec 10, 2020 · 141 S. Ct. 493Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
- Gill v. Whitford138 S. Ct. 1916Jun 18, 2018 · 138 S. Ct. 1916Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins578 U.S. 330May 16, 2016 · 578 U.S. 330Judicial power6–27–2 band
- Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus573 U.S. 149Jun 16, 2014 · 573 U.S. 149Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- James R. Clapper, Jr., Director of National Intelligence, et al., Petitioners v. Amnesty International USA et al.568 U.S. 398Feb 26, 2013 · 568 U.S. 398Judicial power5–45–4 band
- Carol Anne Bond, Petitioner v. United StatesLandmark · Federalism564 U.S. 211Jun 16, 2011 · 564 U.S. 211Judicial powerLandmark · Federalism9–0Unanimous band
- Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization, Petitioner v. Kathleen M. Winn et al.563 U.S. 125Apr 4, 2011 · 563 U.S. 125Judicial power5–45–4 band
- Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States, ex rel., Jonathan Stevens529 U.S. 765May 22, 2000 · 529 U.S. 765Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Steel Company, aka Chicago Steel and Pickling Company v. Citizens for a Better Environment523 U.S. 83Mar 4, 1998 · 523 U.S. 83Judicial power9–0Unanimous band
- Manuel Lujan, Jr., Secretary of the Interior v. Defenders of Wildlife, et al.Landmark504 U.S. 555Jun 12, 1992 · 504 U.S. 555Judicial powerLandmark6–36–3 band
- Virginia v. American Booksellers Association, Inc., et al.484 U.S. 383Jan 25, 1988 · 484 U.S. 383Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
- Simon, Secretary of the Treasury, et al. v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization et al.426 U.S. 26Jun 1, 1976 · 426 U.S. 26Judicial power8–0Unanimous band
- Warth et al. v. Seldin et al.422 U.S. 490Jun 25, 1975 · 422 U.S. 490Judicial power5–45–4 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.