List v. Ohio Elections Commission
45 F. Supp. 3d 765
S.D. Ohio2014Background
- Plaintiffs SBA List and COAST challenge Ohio Rev.Code §§ 3517.21(B)(9)-(10), the political false-statements laws, seeking a preliminary injunction and summary judgment.
- The Ohio Elections Commission (OEC) enforces these laws; complaints trigger expedited hearings and potential penalties, with hearings and discovery before elections.
- Plaintiffs allege the laws chill political speech and give the government power to determine truth, violating the First Amendment.
- The Supreme Court (in 2014) reversed a prior standing decision, allowing Plaintiffs to proceed with their First Amendment challenge as facial objections to the statutes.
- The court held the case ripe for final resolution and concluded the statutes are overbroad and not the least restrictive means to protect elections.
- The court granted a permanent injunction, permanently enjoining the OEC from enforcing §§ 3517.21(B)(9)-(10).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of success on the merits | SBA List argues speech is protected; law is unconstitutional. | OEC argues knowingly false speech is unprotected and law necessary. | Plaintiffs shown strong likelihood of success |
| Constitutional level of scrutiny applicable | Strict scrutiny applies to content-based political speech restrictions. | Law advances compelling interest in election integrity and uses narrowed safeguards. | Strict scrutiny applies; law fails |
| Narrow tailoring and less restrictive alternatives | Statute chills truthful and political speech; counterspeech is preferable. | Procedural safeguards and mens rea mitigate chilling effects. | Not narrowly tailored; overbroad |
| Irreparable harm and public interest | Enjoining protects First Amendment rights ahead of elections. | Enforcement safeguards electoral integrity and prevents deception. | Irreparable harm and public interest favor injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537 (2012) (the remedy for false speech is speech that is true; falsity alone does not remove protection)
- Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (false statements do not automatically lose First Amendment protection)
- 281 Care Comm. v. Arneson, 638 F.3d 621 (8th Cir. 2011) (post-Alvarez false-speech statute not necessarily permissible; not automatically categorically barred)
- McPherson v. Michigan, 119 F.3d 453 (6th Cir. 1997) (firewall of factors; four-factor test for injunctions is flexible)