## Facts

- Ohio law made it unlawful, during an election campaign and with a specified mental state, to make certain false statements about a candidate’s voting record or public office; enforcement ran through the Ohio Elections Commission, with potential criminal consequences.
- During the 2010 congressional campaign, Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) planned to publicize messages asserting that then-Representative Steven Driehaus supported “taxpayer-funded abortion” by voting for the Affordable Care Act.
- Driehaus filed an administrative complaint alleging the statements violated Ohio’s political false-statement provisions.
- The Commission found probable cause and proceedings continued until Driehaus lost the election; the administrative matter was later dismissed.
- Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes (COAST) alleged it intended to disseminate similar messages but refrained because it faced a credible threat of enforcement.
- SBA List and COAST brought a federal pre-enforcement challenge alleging the provisions violated the First Amendment.
- After an earlier justiciability dismissal was reversed and remanded by the Supreme Court, the district court granted summary judgment for SBA List and COAST and permanently enjoined enforcement; state officials appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Ohio’s political false-statement provisions are content-based restrictions on core political speech that violate the First Amendment.
2. Whether the provisions can survive strict scrutiny as narrowly tailored to serve the state’s interest in fair and honest elections.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for SBA List and COAST.
- The court held the challenged provisions were content-based restrictions that burden core protected political speech.
- Applying strict scrutiny, the court concluded the provisions were not narrowly tailored to the state’s asserted interest in promoting fair elections.
- The court upheld the permanent injunction barring enforcement of the challenged provisions.

## Legal Principles

- Laws that regulate campaign speech based on whether the message is “false” are content-based and trigger strict scrutiny.
- Political speech during an election occupies the highest level of First Amendment protection, and state regulation that burdens such speech faces exceptional constitutional limits.
- Even if a state interest in fair and honest elections is compelling, a criminal enforcement scheme that authorizes an administrative body to police political truth must be narrowly tailored; broad prohibitions coupled with probable-cause proceedings and potential criminal referral can unconstitutionally chill protected speech.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held Ohio’s criminal restrictions on certain allegedly false campaign statements unconstitutional because they imposed content-based burdens on core political speech and failed strict scrutiny, and it affirmed a permanent injunction against enforcement.


Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 814 F.3d 466 (6th Cir. 2016)