Cynthia Brown v. David Yost, 122 F.4th 597

Ohio law allows citizens to place constitutional amendments on the ballot through an initiative process, which requires submission of the amendment, a summary, and signatures to the Attorney General for certification as a “fair and truthful statement.”
If the Attorney General rejects the summary, proponents can seek review from the Ohio Supreme Court; only after approval can large-scale signature collection begin.
Cynthia Brown repeatedly submitted an amendment summary seeking to eliminate governmental immunities; her summary was rejected by the Attorney General eight times.
Brown unsuccessfully sought expedited review from the Ohio Supreme Court, then turned to federal court, alleging First Amendment violations and requesting a preliminary injunction to force certification before the November 2024 election.
The district court denied a preliminary injunction, but a divided 6th Circuit panel granted relief; the en banc 6th Circuit vacated that decision and, after the 2024 election, considered whether the case was moot.
The court ultimately found the request for a preliminary injunction moot since the targeted 2024 election had passed, but noted that the underlying case for permanent relief remained live.

Issue	Brown's Argument	Yost's Argument	Held
Mootness of preliminary injunction after 2024 election	Relief would still allow signature collection for future elections	Relief sought was tied exclusively to the 2024 ballot and is now impossible	Motion for preliminary injunction is moot
First Amendment impact of summary certification process	Ohio’s system burdens core political speech and impedes advocacy	Certification process regulates lawmaking, not speech, thus not triggering scrutiny	Did not resolve; noted split; merits remain
Appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny	Strict or hybrid Anderson-Burdick/Grant scrutiny applies due to burden on speech	No First Amendment scrutiny applies to lawmaking processes, only to advocacy limits	Did not decide; left for underlying case
Discretion of Attorney General	Unfettered discretion leads to arbitrary denials & delays violate free speech	Process is reviewable in state court; such discretion is permissible in initiative law	Underlying issue left open; merits not reached

Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988) (invalidated Colorado law restricting payment to petition circulators as a burden on core political speech)
Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (1999) (struck down restrictions on initiative petition circulators, holding initiative advocacy is core political speech)
Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983) (established balancing test for burdens on ballot access and the state's interests)
Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (1992) (discusses mootness based on impossibility of effectual relief)
Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390 (1981) (preliminary injunction appeals can be moot even if underlying case is live)
Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992) (elaboration of Anderson-Burdick standard)
Doe v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186 (2010) (petition signing for referenda is expressive activity protected by First Amendment)