NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 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

2 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,

(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.,

(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,

(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,

(2021).

3 rather than conjectural or hypothetical.”

(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,

, 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,

(1990); Bonta,

. Therefore, we affirm the

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

4