Term: 2013
Docket: 13-193
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus
- Pro
13-193 SUSAN B. ANTHONY LIST V. DRIEHAUS DECISION BELOW: 525 Fed.Appx.415 CERT. GRANTED 1/10/2014 QUESTION PRESENTED: I. To challenge a speech-suppressive law, must a party whose speech is arguably proscribed prove that authorities would certainly and successfully prosecute him, as the Sixth Circuit holds, or should the court presume that a credible threat of prosecution exists absent desuetude or a firm commitment by prosecutors not to enforce the law, as seven other Circuits hold? II. Did the Sixth Circuit err by holding, in direct conflict with the Eighth Circuit, that state laws proscribing "false" political speech are not subject to pre-enforcement First Amendment review so long as the speaker maintains that its speech is true, even if others who enforce the law manifestly disagree? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 11-3894, 11-3925
The case of Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus in 2013 revolved around the issue of free speech and political advertisements during election campaigns. The Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life advocacy group, planned to run an advertisement against Congressman Steven Driehaus claiming he supported taxpayer-funded abortions due to his vote for the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Before they could do so, Driehaus filed a complaint with Ohio's Election Commission under a state law that prohibited false statements about candidates' voting records during elections. The commission found probable cause that the statement was false but did not make a final determination as Driehaus lost re-election and withdrew his complaint. However, fearing future prosecutions under this law, the Susan B. Anthony List sued on First Amendment grounds arguing that their right to free speech had been violated by this statute which chilled their ability to engage in lawful political discourse. In 2014, after several rounds of litigation over standing issues at lower courts level including dismissal by district court citing lack of jurisdiction and reversal from Sixth Circuit Court; Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of SBA list stating it faced credible threat enough for pre-enforcement review thus allowing them challenge constitutionality of Ohio’s False Statement Law.
The Supreme Court case Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus did not have a dissenting opinion as the decision was unanimous, 9-0 in favor of the plaintiff, Susan B. Anthony List (SBA). The court ruled that SBA had standing to challenge an Ohio law criminalizing false political speech because they faced a credible threat of enforcement under it and thus suffered an injury-in-fact sufficient to confer Article III standing. This ruling allowed SBA's First Amendment claim against the law to proceed in lower courts.
