New Jersey Slapped Down 9-0 by SCOTUS in Their Attempt to Gain Donor List of Pro-Life Group

[excalibur]

It really was a good day at SCOTUS.

Yet! The Democrat AG of NJ is still pursuing this in state court using the most specious of grounds. Democrat attorneys have no fear of being disbarred for such actions, so why not. See link below.

In a Section 1983 suit challenging a subpoena issued by the New Jersey attorney general demanding documents and donor information, First Choice has established a present injury to its First Amendment associational rights sufficient to confer Article III standing.

Since the 1950s, this Court has confronted one official demand after another like the Attorney General's. Over and again, we have held those demands burden the exercise of First Amendment rights. Disputing none of these precedents but seeking ways around them, the Attorney General has offered a variety of arguments. Some are old, some are new, but none succeeds. Accordingly, the judgment of the Third Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.


It is so ordered.​

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-781_pok0.pdf

Despite SCOTUS Ruling, New Jersey's AG Is Still Targeting First Choice Pregnancy Centers

SCOTUS backs First Choice Pregnancy Centers against NJ AG subpoenas targeting donor info.

townhall.com

 

[OKTexas]

It really was a good day at SCOTUS.

Yet! The Democrat AG of NJ is still pursuing this in state court using the most specious of grounds. Democrat attorneys have no fear of being disbarred for such actions, so why not. See link below.

In a Section 1983 suit challenging a subpoena issued by the New Jersey attorney general demanding documents and donor information, First Choice has established a present injury to its First Amendment associational rights sufficient to confer Article III standing.​

​

Since the 1950s, this Court has confronted one official demand after another like the Attorney General's. Over and again, we have held those demands burden the exercise of First Amendment rights. Disputing none of these precedents but seeking ways around them, the Attorney General has offered a variety of arguments. Some are old, some are new, but none succeeds. Accordingly, the judgment of the Third Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.​

​

​

It is so ordered.​

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-781_pok0.pdf

Despite SCOTUS Ruling, New Jersey's AG Is Still Targeting First Choice Pregnancy Centers

SCOTUS backs First Choice Pregnancy Centers against NJ AG subpoenas targeting donor info.

townhall.com

The easy fix is to prosecute the AG for depravation of civil rights. Jail a couple and this crap will stop.

.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Good ruling. All groups, left right indifferent, should be protected from government snooping.

 

[Eman623]

Looks like the 3rd circuit is giving the 9th a run for its money when it comes to abridging citizens' rights.

 

[excalibur]

The easy fix is to prosecute the AG for depravation of civil rights. Jail a couple and this crap will stop.

.

They have immunity. Although a civil lawsuit may be possible.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The easy fix is to prosecute the AG for depravation of civil rights. Jail a couple and this crap will stop.

Did you mean deprivation? Not the same word.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Looks like the 3rd circuit is giving the 9th a run for its money when it comes to abridging citizens' rights.

How do you get that? I didn't see either court mentioned.

 

[westwall]

They have immunity. Although a civil lawsuit may be possible.

Tell that to Mike Nifong.

 

[OKTexas]

They have immunity. Although a civil lawsuit may be possible.

Actually they don't, once they've been shot down by SCOTUS, further actions to circumvent that ruling is outside their official duties. And as a sworn officer of the court they have an obligation to protect civil rights, not try to abuse them.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Did you mean deprivation? Not the same word.

Excuse the typo teach. LMAO

.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Can public officials, such as an AG, be subject of a civil suit?

Yes — public officials, including an Attorney General, can be sued in civil court, but how
they can be sued depends on what they did and in what capacity they were acting. The law draws sharp lines between official‑capacity actions, personal‑capacity actions, and immunity doctrines.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Excuse the typo teach. LMAO

.

Those words are almost antonyms. Do better!

 

[EdwinAMartin]

It really was a good day at SCOTUS.

Yet! The Democrat AG of NJ is still pursuing this in state court using the most specious of grounds. Democrat attorneys have no fear of being disbarred for such actions, so why not. See link below.

In a Section 1983 suit challenging a subpoena issued by the New Jersey attorney general demanding documents and donor information, First Choice has established a present injury to its First Amendment associational rights sufficient to confer Article III standing.​

​

Since the 1950s, this Court has confronted one official demand after another like the Attorney General's. Over and again, we have held those demands burden the exercise of First Amendment rights. Disputing none of these precedents but seeking ways around them, the Attorney General has offered a variety of arguments. Some are old, some are new, but none succeeds. Accordingly, the judgment of the Third Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.​

​

​

It is so ordered.​

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-781_pok0.pdf

Despite SCOTUS Ruling, New Jersey's AG Is Still Targeting First Choice Pregnancy Centers

SCOTUS backs First Choice Pregnancy Centers against NJ AG subpoenas targeting donor info.

townhall.com

Good on the SC for once. These Democrat media and leadership are promoting assassination as a tactic to their insane psychopath deviant vermin base, so it's necessary to protect real humans from the feral animals.

 

[EdwinAMartin]

Excuse the typo teach. LMAO

.

Both words apply in the case of NJ Democrats.

 

[White 6]

It really was a good day at SCOTUS.

Yet! The Democrat AG of NJ is still pursuing this in state court using the most specious of grounds. Democrat attorneys have no fear of being disbarred for such actions, so why not. See link below.

In a Section 1983 suit challenging a subpoena issued by the New Jersey attorney general demanding documents and donor information, First Choice has established a present injury to its First Amendment associational rights sufficient to confer Article III standing.​

​

Since the 1950s, this Court has confronted one official demand after another like the Attorney General's. Over and again, we have held those demands burden the exercise of First Amendment rights. Disputing none of these precedents but seeking ways around them, the Attorney General has offered a variety of arguments. Some are old, some are new, but none succeeds. Accordingly, the judgment of the Third Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.​

​

​

It is so ordered.​

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-781_pok0.pdf

Despite SCOTUS Ruling, New Jersey's AG Is Still Targeting First Choice Pregnancy Centers

SCOTUS backs First Choice Pregnancy Centers against NJ AG subpoenas targeting donor info.

townhall.com

Looks like the NJ AG won't get to fish, but simply cut bait. Obviously not entitled to a list of donors to that organization or pro-abortion group either, if he had wanted it.