Supreme Court Decides Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus


On June 16, 2014, the United States Supreme Court decided Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, No. 13-193, holding that a credible threat of enforcement of a law is sufficient to establish an Article III injury in fact.

During the 2010 elections, Susan B. Anthony List (SBA) criticized members of Congress who voted for the Affordable Care Act, including Steve Driehaus of Ohio. SBA issued a press release stating that Driehaus had "voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion." Driehaus complained to the Ohio Election Commission on the basis of Ohio Revised Code § 3517.21(B)(9) and (10), which bar knowingly making a false statement about a candidate's voting record and knowingly or recklessly disseminating a false statement about a candidate, if designed to affect the election. The Commission instituted administrative proceedings. Another group, Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes (COAST), intended to disseminate similar statements but refrained after the administrative proceedings against SBA began.

SBA and COAST each sued alleging that §§ 3517.21(B)(9) and (10) are unconstitutional. The district court consolidated the suits and dismissed both, concluding that neither SBA nor COAST had a sufficiently concrete injury to establish standing. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the case was not ripe for review.

The Supreme Court reversed, holding that SBA and COAST established a threat of enforcement of §§ 3517.21(B)(9) and (10) that is sufficient to establish an injury in fact for Article III standing purposes. The Court first reasoned that SBA and COAST alleged an intention to engage in conduct that is arguably affected with a constitutional interest because their future conduct concerns political speech. Second, SBAs and COASTs future conduct is "arguably proscribed" by the law, in particular because the Commission already found probable cause to believe SBA violated the statute in 2010 with similar statements. Finally, the threat of future enforcement of the statute is substantial because (1) there is a history of past enforcement; (2) the Commission found probable cause that SBA violated the statute; (3) anyone may file a complaint with the Commission; and (4) the Commission regularly hears false-statement complaints.

Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the unanimous Court.

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Faegre Baker Daniels | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.