Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 134 S. Ct. 2334

Background

Ohio law (§3517.21(B)) criminalized certain false statements in campaigns, including false statements about a candidate's voting record and disseminating false statements to affect an election; enforcement can be initiated by “any person” via the Ohio Elections Commission and can lead to administrative hearings and referral for criminal prosecution.
Susan B. Anthony List (SBA), a pro-life advocacy group, published statements in 2010 criticizing Rep. Driehaus for voting for the ACA as a vote for "taxpayer-funded abortion;" a Commission panel found probable cause that SBA violated the statute and discovery/administrative proceedings followed; the case was paused and then dropped after the election.
SBA sued pre-enforcement in federal court, alleging the statute chills protected political speech and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief; Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes (COAST) brought a similar suit, alleging it refrained from planned communications because of the Commission action.
The district court dismissed both suits as nonjusticiable for lack of standing/ripeness; the Sixth Circuit affirmed on ripeness grounds, emphasizing speculation about future complaints and that petitioners claimed their statements were true.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari and held petitioners had alleged a sufficiently imminent injury to satisfy Article III standing and that prudential ripeness factors (fitness and hardship) were met.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Article III standing for pre-enforcement challenge	SBA/COAST intend to make similar political statements in future; prior Commission probable-cause finding and other facts create a credible threat of enforcement	Respondents argued threatened enforcement is speculative (e.g., complainant may not file again), and petitioners claim truthfulness so prosecution unlikely	Court held plaintiffs alleged injury-in-fact: intent to speak + credible threat of enforcement satisfies standing
Whether plaintiffs’ intended speech is arguably proscribed by statute	The Ohio statute broadly reaches statements about voting records and dissemination to affect elections, matching petitioners’ planned speech	Respondents relied on Golden and argued past enforcement was too conjectural and statute unlikely to apply to the alleged truthful statements	Court held the statute arguably proscribes petitioners’ intended speech and distinguished Golden (which involved a now-defunct candidate)
Credibility/substantiality of enforcement threat	Past probable-cause finding, billboard refusal after threats, frequent Commission complaints, and ability of “any person” to complain make future enforcement realistic and burdensome	Respondents emphasized absence of conviction and petitioners’ claimed truthfulness to minimize likelihood of prosecution	Court found the threat substantial—past enforcement and structural features of scheme make enforcement non‑chimerical; administrative proceedings plus threat of criminal referral suffice
Prudential ripeness (fitness & hardship)	Facial constitutional challenge is purely legal; withholding review forces choice between silence or costly defense during campaigns	Respondents argued factual development and hardship considerations counsel abstention	Court found fitness and hardship satisfied and declined to bar review on prudential grounds

Key Cases Cited

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (injury-in-fact requirements for standing)
Babbitt v. United Farm Workers, 442 U.S. 289 (pre-enforcement challenge when credible threat of prosecution exists)
Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452 (pre-enforcement standing where threats and companion’s prosecution make fear non‑chimerical)
Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103 (pre-enforcement challenge dismissed where future enforcement was wholly conjectural)
Virginia v. American Booksellers Assn., Inc., 484 U.S. 383 (booksellers had standing for pre-enforcement challenge to display statute)
MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (doctrine allowing declaratory relief without exposing oneself to liability)
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (pre-enforcement review where numerous prosecutions and government’s refusal to disavow enforcement created credible threat)
Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (clarified "certainly impending" and substantial risk standards for future injury)
Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (limitations on prudential ripeness and emphasis on federal courts’ duty to decide cases within jurisdiction)