Lexplug logoLexplug

Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus

Supreme Court of the United States
573 U. S. ____ (2014) (2014)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A plaintiff has Article III standing to bring a preenforcement challenge to a statute if they allege an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by that statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution or enforcement thereunder.


Facts:

  • Susan B. Anthony List (SBA), a pro-life advocacy organization, planned to publicly criticize then-Congressman Steve Driehaus for his vote on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) during the 2010 election.
  • SBA sought to display a billboard that would read: 'Shame on Steve Driehaus! Driehaus voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion.'
  • An advertising company refused to display the message after Driehaus's counsel threatened legal action based on an Ohio law prohibiting false statements in campaigns.
  • Driehaus filed a complaint against SBA with the Ohio Elections Commission, alleging SBA's statement violated the state's false statement statute.
  • SBA alleged that it intends to engage in substantially similar speech in future elections, criticizing other candidates for their votes on the ACA.
  • Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes (COAST) alleged it intended to make similar statements about candidates who supported the ACA but refrained from doing so due to the enforcement action against SBA.

Procedural Posture:

  • After Steve Driehaus filed an administrative complaint, Susan B. Anthony List (SBA) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, seeking a declaration that Ohio's false statement law was unconstitutional.
  • Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes (COAST) filed a similar suit, which was consolidated with SBA's case.
  • The District Court dismissed both suits as non-justiciable, finding the plaintiffs had not alleged a sufficiently concrete injury to establish standing or ripeness.
  • SBA and COAST, as appellants, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
  • The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that the case was not ripe for review.
  • The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Sixth Circuit's decision.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a political advocacy group have Article III standing to bring a preenforcement challenge to a state law prohibiting false statements in election campaigns when the group intends to make statements that are arguably proscribed by the law and has previously been the subject of an enforcement action under that law?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Thomas

Yes. A preenforcement challenge to a law is justiciable when a plaintiff alleges an intent to engage in constitutionally protected conduct that is arguably proscribed by the law, and there is a credible threat of enforcement. Here, the petitioners (SBA and COAST) satisfied all elements for standing. First, they alleged an intention to engage in core political speech, which is protected by the First Amendment. Second, their intended speech is arguably proscribed by the broad Ohio statute, a conclusion supported by the fact that Driehaus had already filed a complaint against SBA for nearly identical speech. Third, the threat of future enforcement is substantial and not merely speculative; SBA was already subjected to an enforcement action, the Ohio law allows any person (including political opponents) to file a complaint, the Commission handles many such complaints, and the state has not disavowed future enforcement. The burden of the administrative proceedings, backed by the threat of criminal prosecution, constitutes a sufficient injury-in-fact for Article III standing.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies the 'credible threat' standard for standing in preenforcement challenges, particularly in the context of laws that may chill First Amendment speech. It establishes that burdensome administrative proceedings, especially when they can be initiated by private citizens like political opponents and are backed by potential criminal penalties, can constitute a sufficient injury for a case to be heard in federal court. This ruling lowers the barrier for individuals and organizations to challenge the constitutionality of speech-regulating statutes before they are actually prosecuted, thereby protecting speech from the chilling effect of such laws. It reinforces the principle that plaintiffs need not 'bet the farm' by violating a law and risking punishment simply to gain access to the courts.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus (2014)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"