Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 814 F.3d 466

Ohio criminalizes disseminating false statements about political candidates in campaign materials during an election if made knowingly or with reckless disregard, with administrative probable-cause and adjudicatory processes and potential criminal referral and penalties.
SBA List and COAST sought declaratory and injunctive relief after SBA List faced a Commission probable-cause finding over a press release about Rep. Driehaus; the Supreme Court found the facial challenge ripe and remanded.
On remand the district court granted summary judgment for SBA List and COAST, striking the statutes and enjoining enforcement.
The Sixth Circuit majority affirms: it concludes prior Sixth Circuit precedent (Pestrak) is no longer controlling in light of later Supreme Court decisions and that the Ohio statutes are content-based restrictions on core political speech.
The court applies strict scrutiny and holds Ohio’s interests (protecting election integrity) are compelling but the statutes are not narrowly tailored for multiple reasons (timing, lack of screening, overbreadth/underinclusiveness, application to nonmaterial statements and intermediaries).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Pestrak remains controlling	Pestrak should not shield the law post-Alvarez and later Supreme Court decisions	Pestrak remains binding on the Sixth Circuit	Pestrak is abrogated by subsequent Supreme Court authority (esp. Alvarez) and is not controlling
Level of scrutiny to apply	Statute burdens core political speech and is content-based → strict scrutiny	Statute should receive lesser (intermediate) scrutiny	Strict scrutiny applies because the law targets content (political speech)
Whether the statutes survive strict scrutiny	Statute is not narrowly tailored and burdens protected speech; facially overbroad	Statute serves compelling interests in election integrity and preventing voter confusion/fraud	Ohio’s interests compelling but statutes fail narrow tailoring and therefore are unconstitutional
Specific tailoring defects	Procedures allow preelection probable-cause stigma, no screening for frivolous complaints, reach nonmaterial statements and intermediaries, and are over-/underinclusive	Procedures are needed to promptly police false campaign speech and protect elections	Court finds timing, lack of screening, scope (materiality, intermediaries), and fit defects fatal to tailoring requirement

Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 134 S. Ct. 2334 (2014) (Supreme Court held challenge to Ohio scheme was ripe for facial review)
United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537 (2012) (rejected categorical rule that false statements receive no First Amendment protection)
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015) (laws distinguishing speech by subject are content-based and trigger strict scrutiny)
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) (political speech at core of First Amendment; restrictions must be narrowly tailored)
Pestrak v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 926 F.2d 573 (6th Cir. 1991) (prior Sixth Circuit upholding Ohio statute; treated as abrogated here)
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) (government may not proscribe speech based on disfavored content elements)
N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (actual malice standard for public-official defamation)
Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992) (recognizing compelling state interest in protecting the electoral process)
Eu v. San Francisco Cnty. Democratic Central Comm., 489 U.S. 214 (1989) (state has compelling interest in election integrity)