Today is our last Quiz discussing the Supreme Court’s 2026 First Choice Women's Res. Centers, Inc. v. Davenport decision. Let’s see how you do.
True or False: An injury in fact arises when a defendant burdens a plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
(Scroll down for the answer)
Answer: True! Here’s what the Supreme Court said:
All this is more than enough to establish injury in fact under our precedents. An injury in fact does not arise only when a defendant causes a tangible harm to a plaintiff, like a physical injury or monetary loss. It can also arise when a defendant burdens a plaintiff ’s constitutional rights. See TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 425, 141 S.Ct. 2190, 210 L.Ed.2d 568 (2021). And our cases have long recognized that demands for a charity's private member or donor information have just that effect. They “ ‘discourag[e]’ ” people from associating with groups engaged in protected First Amendment advocacy. NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. at 460–463, 78 S.Ct. 1163. They also encourage groups and individuals to cease or modify protected First Amendment advocacy the government disfavors. See id.; Shelton, 364 U.S. at 485–487, 81 S.Ct. 247. All this occurs not just when a demand is enforced, but when it is made and for as long as it remains outstanding. As we have put it, a demand for private donor information “inevitabl[y]” deters the exercise of First Amendment rights, Buckley, 424 U.S. at 65, 96 S.Ct. 612, and can do so “as effectivel[y]” as other “forms of governmental action” might, NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. at 462, 78 S.Ct. 1163.
A more general principle, too, confirms the specific lesson our cases teach on this score. Across contexts, we have said, courts may make “commonsense inferences” when assessing Article III standing, including inferences about “third party behavior.” Diamond Alternative Energy, 606 U.S. at 116, 145 S.Ct. 2121. And “organizations span[ning] the ideological spectrum” confirm the reasonableness of the inferences our cases have drawn about the burdens that demands for private donor information inevitably impose on protected First Amendment rights. AFP, 594 U.S. at 617, 141 S.Ct. 2373. Groups ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the National Taxpayers Union Foundation to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have filed briefs in this case explaining that, “[e]ven if a subpoena targeting First Amendment activity is never enforced in court, [it] will give its targets a very good reason to clam up [and] give the target organization's members and supporters a very good reason to abandon the cause.” Brief for Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, American Civil Liberties Union, and American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey as Amici Curiae 6 (FIRE Brief); see also Brief for National Taxpayers Union Foundation as Amicus Curiae; Brief for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, et al. as Amici Curiae. Worse, amici represent, officials “across the political spectrum” have sometimes issued subpoenas and other investigatory demands in order to secure just these results. FIRE Brief 4; see also id., at 12–23 (collecting examples).
Each of these strands tightens the braid into one conclusion. From its allegations and declarations, and given our many and longstanding precedents in the area and reasonable inferences about third party behavior, First Choice has established that the Attorney General's demand for private donor information injures the group's First Amendment associational rights.
First Choice Women's Res. Centers, Inc. v. Davenport, 146 S. Ct. 1114, 1125–26, 224 L. Ed. 2d 672 (2026)
Disclaimer: The Religion Law Quizzes are provided as a service to you. They are intended only for educational purposes. Nothing in the Quizzes is intended to be legal advice and they should not be relied upon as conclusive on any issue discussed therein.