Court Cases That Have Been Decided or Dismissed
The Council is committed to helping our members stay informed about litigation that may have an impact on the philanthropic sector. This page lists cases that we tracked through their conclusion, whether they were decided in court or by settlement. Please see our list of ongoing cases we are tracking. For a more comprehensive overview of cases targeting DEI initiatives broadly, we recommend consulting this DEI litigation tracker published by The Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging at New York University School of Law.
This webpage was last updated on May 1, 2026.
Cases That Have Been Decided or Dismissed
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport
The Supreme Court of the United States
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport arose from a subpoena issued by the New Jersey Attorney General seeking a broad range of documents and records from First Choice, including the names of many of its donors. First Choice, a faith-based pregnancy center, challenged the subpoena in federal court, arguing that compelled disclosure of donor information would violate its First Amendment rights to speech, association, and privacy. The lower courts concluded that First Choice had not shown the kind of injury needed to sue in federal court, but the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed.
In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Gorsuch, the Court held that First Choice had established an injury sufficient to bring its constitutional challenge in federal court. The Court explained that demands for private donor or member information can chill First Amendment associational rights by discouraging people from supporting or associating with organizations engaged in protected advocacy. Importantly, the Court rejected the argument that there was no injury simply because the subpoena was not self-executing or because the Attorney General later promised not to make the donor information public.
The decision is important for religious, advocacy, and mission-driven organizations because it reinforces that government demands for donor information can raise serious First Amendment concerns, even before the demand is enforced. While the case focused on the procedural question of federal-court access, it may make it easier for organizations to challenge state investigatory subpoenas when they believe those subpoenas chill protected speech, association, or religious activity.
Current Status: The case was decided on April 29, 2026
American Alliance for Equal Rights and Do No Harm v. Buckfire & Buckfire, P.C.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division
American Alliance for Equal Rights (AAER) and Do No Harm filed a lawsuit in federal court in Detroit against the law firm Buckfire & Buckfire, P.C. The complaint claimed that Buckfire unlawfully rejected three white students who applied for the firm’s medical and law school diversity scholarships.
According to AAER and Do No Harm, the program violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981, a federal law that prohibited racial discrimination in contracts by both public and private entities. The groups asked the court to issue a permanent order preventing Buckfire from learning applicants’ race, treating applicants differently because of race, or using race in any way when running its scholarship programs.
The case was dismissed after Buckfire agreed to revise its scholarships to no longer ask applicants to identify their race or ethnicity nor take into account an applicant's race or ethnicity.
Current Status: The case was dismissed on March 4, 2026.
Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor Review Comm’n
The Supreme Court of the United States
On June 5, 2025, The United States Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that Wisconsin violated the Constitution by “imposing a denominational preference by differentiating between religions based on theological choices.” Last year, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that Catholic Charities’ ministry to the poor and needy was not “typical” religious activity because it served everyone, not just those who were Catholic. This meant that Catholic Charities could not join the Wisconsin Catholic Church’s unemployment compensation program but was stuck paying into the state’s less efficient and more costly plan.
The outcome of this case will have far-reaching effects on the treatment of religious organizations under state laws, particularly concerning tax exemptions and the newly expanded definition of religious activities.
