Reversed and remanded: The subpoena presents a justiciable Case under Article III, as it threatens direct burden on First Amendment-protected speech and assembly.

1) The question is whether First Choice may sue in federal court under 42 U.S.C. §1983 to quash a New Jersey Attorney General subpoena demanding names, addresses, phone numbers, and employers of its donors, claiming it chills First Amendment rights, without waiting for a state court to enforce it. 2) Article III, Section 2 extends judicial power to 'all Cases... arising under this Constitution'; First Amendment states 'Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.' 3) At ratification in 1791, 'Cases' meant actual disputes with adverse legal interests, not hypotheticals; courts in equity enjoined unlawful executive demands threatening liberty. Founders valued anonymous political expression (e.g., Federalist Papers under pseudonyms) and protected assemblies from government harassment or compelled disclosure that deterred petitioning. No general power allowed officials to demand private supporter lists absent probable cause of crime. 4) Held: Yes, standing exists. The subpoena's broad demands and repeated contempt warnings create a present Case, as any reasonable group would alter speech or deter associates to avoid penalties, directly burdening assembly and speech—core First Amendment guarantees against such official pressure. 5) Downstream, district court assesses subpoena's merits (e.g., overbreadth); bolsters textual limits on administrative demands, vacating compelled disclosures chilling dissident views while allowing states Tenth Amendment police powers if narrowly tailored.