Saturday, August 16, 2025
Procedural neutrality
SCOTUS next term will decide First Choice Women’s Resource Center v. Platkin, on whether the target of a civil investigative subpoena can challenge the subpoena in federal court or whether it must ignore the subpoena and defend in a proceeding to enforce that subpoena. The case involves New Jersey seeking information from a crisis pregnancy center. The usual suspects to view the case through pure partisanship–the petitioner will win because of course the Court will support anti-choice activists.
That reaction surprised me, given the obvious potential for cases with the opposite political valence–Red States or a Republican administration pursuing liberal speakers. Case-in-point: The D.D.C. enjoined the FTC from pursuing a broad CID targeting Media Matters‘ purported role in an advertising boycott of Twitter.
I know the likely (facile) response–the Court will find a way to protect First Choice but not Media Matters. But that sort of nihilism is undisproveable and thus impossible to engage with. At the very least, I am not inclined to view First Choice as a politically motivated bad omen, to the extent it establishes cross-ideological free-speech protections.
Posted by Howard Wasserman on August 16, 2025 at 03:34 PM in Civil Procedure, Constitutional thoughts, First Amendment, Howard Wasserman, Judicial Process | Permalink
Comments
The comments to this entry are closed.