Challenging State Civil Investigative Demands Prohibited by Federal Law: Strategies and Practical Tips

This CLE webinar will discuss strategies and best practices for litigators challenging general civil investigative demand (CID) or investigative subpoenas issued by a state attorney general. The panel will provide a brief introduction to state AG CIDs, an overview of the various strategies for responding to a CID, and common pitfalls to avoid.  The panel will offer new insights from the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in First Choice Women's Resource Center v. Platkin, ___ U.S. ___ (2026), and consider options for responding in the context of different industries that are most frequently the subject of investigation.

The recipient of a state AG's CID or investigative subpoena has several options: resist completely, negotiate a narrower request with protections, or raise federal constitutional and preemption arguments. Businesses in the tech, health, insurance, and finance fields are frequently on the receiving end of these demands, and often want counsel to mount strong resistance. This approach, however, is seldom effective or advantageous. It also is not often the most effective way to work with and across from state AGs.  

A party pursuing the third option (raising federal constitutional and preemption arguments) is often faced with a classic "Catch-22" dilemma. To have a federal court determine the federal issues, the challenger must first receive an adverse decision in state court. However, federal judges are likely to dismiss any subsequent federal lawsuit under the Anti-Injunction Act or on abstention grounds. The First Choice matter's path to the Supreme Court is illustrative of these difficulties and offers new insights into when these arguments may be most effective. 

Listen as our expert panel offers insights and strategies for challenging state civil investigative demands.