Laws against false political speech
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus
In brief
The Supreme Court overturned the appeals court’s ruling and sent the case back because SBA List had alleged a sufficiently imminent injury to challenge Ohio’s law.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided · June 16, 2014 · Opinion by Justice Thomas
- What it’s about
- Susan B. Anthony List planned a billboard saying Representative Steven Driehaus’s vote for the Affordable Care Act supported taxpayer-funded abortion, and Ohio’s elections commission began proceedings over its political speech.
- Who it affects
- SBA List can continue its challenge before prosecution, but the Supreme Court did not decide whether Ohio’s law violates the First Amendment.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court ruled that the threat of enforcement SBA List alleged was sufficiently near-term to challenge the law before prosecution, overturned the appeals court’s ruling, and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded).
SBA List planned a billboard saying that Rep. Steven Driehaus’s vote for the Affordable Care Act supported taxpayer-funded abortion. Ohio’s elections commission began proceedings over the group’s political speech.
Ohio’s elections commission began proceedings over SBA List’s planned campaign statement, bringing the state’s political-speech law into dispute.
Question presented
1. Did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit err in holding that the advertising company's rejection of the proposed billboard and the Commission's actions against SBA List do not demonstrate an imminent threat of future prosecution sufficient to establish ripeness under Article III? 2. Did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit err in holding that state laws prohibiting false political speech are not subject to pre-enforcement First Amendment review as long as the speaker maintains that the statements are factually true?
What the Court decided
Holding
Petitioners have alleged a sufficiently imminent injury for Article III purposes. 415, reversed and remanded.
- Result
- Reversed
The Court's reasoning
The Court said SBA List had alleged a harm close enough in time to count as a near-term threat, which was enough to bring its challenge to court. It did not decide whether Ohio’s law violated the First Amendment.
The vote
- Majority author
- Clarence Thomas
What's next
The Sixth Circuit will continue the case in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Documents
Opinions
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Opinion added: Driehaus
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.