Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus
814 F.3d 466, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 3186, 2016 FED App. 0048P (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law that prohibits disseminating false statements about a political candidate during an election campaign is a content-based restriction on core political speech that violates the First Amendment if it is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.
Facts:
- An Ohio law, Rev. Code § 3517.21(B), prohibits disseminating false information about a political candidate in campaign materials 'knowing the same to be false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not'.
- During the 2010 election season, Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List), an advocacy group, issued a press release accusing then-Congressman Steven Driehaus of voting for 'taxpayer-funded abortion' by supporting the Affordable Care Act.
- SBA List intended to display this message on billboards.
- In response, Congressman Driehaus filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission, alleging that SBA List's statement violated Ohio's political false-statements law.
- A second group, Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes (COAST), wished to make similar public statements criticizing Driehaus's vote on the Affordable Care Act.
Procedural Posture:
- Congressman Steven Driehaus filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission against Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List).
- A panel of the Commission found probable cause that SBA List had violated Ohio's political false-statements law.
- SBA List filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against Driehaus and state officials, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
- A similar case filed by the Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes (COAST) was consolidated with SBA List's suit.
- The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue of ripeness, which found the case was justiciable and remanded it.
- On remand, the district court granted summary judgment for SBA List and COAST, declaring the Ohio laws unconstitutional and permanently enjoining their enforcement.
- The Ohio Elections Commission appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
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 Ohio's law prohibiting the dissemination of false statements about a political candidate during a campaign, knowing them to be false or with reckless disregard for their truth, violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
Opinions:
Majority - Cole, C.J.
Yes, the Ohio law violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. A law that regulates core political speech based on its content is subject to strict scrutiny and is presumptively unconstitutional. While Ohio has a compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its elections, its political false-statements laws are not narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Alvarez established that false speech is not a category of speech wholly unprotected by the First Amendment, abrogating this court's prior precedent in Pestrak. The Ohio law fails strict scrutiny because it is not narrowly tailored in several ways: 1) its administrative process timing can harm a candidate via a preliminary probable-cause finding without guaranteeing a resolution before the election; 2) it lacks a mechanism to screen out frivolous complaints filed for political advantage; 3) it applies to all false statements, including non-material ones that have little bearing on an election's integrity; 4) its broad scope applies not only to speakers but also to commercial intermediaries like billboard companies; and 5) it is both over-inclusive, by chilling speech and damaging campaigns before a final ruling, and under-inclusive, by failing to provide timely remedies for those harmed by false statements.
Analysis:
This decision significantly curtails a state's ability to police the truthfulness of political speech, reinforcing the principle from United States v. Alvarez that even false statements receive some First Amendment protection. By applying strict scrutiny and finding the Ohio law not narrowly tailored, the court signals that such statutes are highly susceptible to constitutional challenges. The ruling emphasizes a preference for counterspeech as the remedy for false political statements, rather than government regulation, thereby setting a high bar for any future legislative attempts to criminalize political falsehoods. This case provides a clear framework of flaws—such as lack of a materiality requirement and potential for procedural abuse—that will likely prove fatal to similar laws in other jurisdictions.
