Supreme Court’s First Choice Decision May Expand Federal Court Options to Recipients of State Attorney General CIDs
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport may create a new strategic consideration for recipients of state attorney general civil investigative demands (CIDs). In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that a nonprofit could pursue a Section 1983 challenge to a New Jersey Attorney General subpoena in federal court based on alleged First Amendment associational harms arising from compelled donor disclosure.
Although the Court emphasized the narrow nature of its holding, the decision potentially opens the door to federal court challenges where state attorney general CIDs implicate donor anonymity, expressive association, advocacy activities, or other constitutional interests. The ruling also reflects the Court’s continued willingness to recognize Article III standing based on alleged chilling effects tied to First Amendment rights.
Our latest post examines the decision, the arguments raised by a coalition of state attorneys general, and what the ruling may mean for companies, nonprofits, trade associations, and other recipients of state attorney general investigative demands.
Tariff Enforcement at the Forefront: Importer Agrees to Pay $549.5 million in Largest-Ever Trade-Related False Claims Act Settlement
On May 12, 2026, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced a $549.5 million settlement with Perfectus Aluminum Acquisitions LLC and four affiliated companies to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act (“FCA”) by evading customs duties. This settlement is the largest trade-related settlement under the FCA.
The action was initiated by qui tam cases brought by individuals who worked for U.S.-based competitors and the Aluminum Extrusion Counsel and ultimately coordinated through the DOJ’s Trade Fraud Task Force, which involved cooperation between DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security. This case highlights the increasing use of the FCA to hold importers liable for the underpayment of customs duties, the Administration’s commitment to enforcing U.S. customs laws, and the potential for competitors and former employees to harness the FCA to motivate federal investigations into allegations of trade fraud.
This post examines the settlement and discusses its implications for importers, manufacturers, and other companies facing customs and trade enforcement risk.
