Facts
- An Ohio statute prohibited knowingly or recklessly making a false statement about a candidate’s or public official’s voting record during a campaign, enforced through proceedings before the Ohio Elections Commission (OEC) with possible referral for criminal prosecution.
- During the 2010 election cycle, Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) planned a billboard criticizing Representative Steven Driehaus’s vote for the Affordable Care Act, stating he “voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion.”
- Driehaus filed an OEC complaint alleging the statement was false; an OEC panel found probable cause that SBA List violated the statute.
- After the probable-cause finding and threatened legal action, the billboard company declined to run the billboard.
- SBA List filed a federal suit seeking to enjoin enforcement of the statute as violating the First Amendment; COAST filed a related suit alleging it withheld similar speech due to the enforcement threat.
- After Driehaus lost reelection, he withdrew his OEC complaint and the administrative proceedings ended; petitioners continued a pre-enforcement constitutional challenge because they intended to engage in similar speech in future elections.
- The district court dismissed for lack of justiciability; the Sixth Circuit affirmed on ripeness grounds.
Issues
- Whether petitioners’ pre-enforcement First Amendment challenge alleged an injury in fact that was sufficiently imminent to satisfy Article III standing and ripeness.
- Whether petitioners faced a credible threat of enforcement under the Ohio statute based on their intended future political speech.
Decision
- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed.
- The Court held petitioners alleged a sufficiently imminent injury to establish Article III standing and ripeness for a pre-enforcement challenge.
- The Court remanded for consideration of the First Amendment merits, which it did not decide.
Legal Principles
- A plaintiff may bring a pre-enforcement challenge by alleging (i) an intention to engage in constitutionally protected conduct, (ii) conduct arguably proscribed by the challenged law, and (iii) a credible threat of enforcement.
- A prior probable-cause finding under the challenged law for similar speech supports a credible threat of future enforcement.
- The availability of enforcement initiation by private complainants, combined with burdensome administrative proceedings and potential criminal referral, can create a substantial enforcement threat and support standing even absent a pending prosecution.
- The end of a prior enforcement proceeding does not defeat standing or ripeness where the plaintiff’s intended speech is likely to recur and the enforcement mechanism remains available.
- Prudential ripeness may be satisfied where the issues are primarily legal and withholding review would cause hardship through ongoing self-censorship risk.
Conclusion
The Court permitted a pre-enforcement First Amendment challenge to proceed because the advocacy groups plausibly alleged intended future campaign speech arguably covered by the statute and a substantial, non-speculative risk of enforcement through the OEC process and potential criminal referral.