Civil Procedure – ripeness — First Amendment

Listen to this article

U.S. Supreme Court

Civil

Civil Procedure – ripeness — First Amendment

Petitioners have standing to raise a First Amendment challenge to a state statute prohibiting false statements during an election.

Petitioners’ intended future conduct is also “arguably . . . proscribed by [the] statute.” The Ohio false statement statute sweeps broadly, and a panel of the Ohio Elections Commission already found probable cause to believe that SBA violated the law when it made statements similar to those petitioners plan to make in the future. Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U. S. 103, is distinguishable; the threat of prosecution under an electoral leafletting ban in that case was wholly conjectural because the plaintiff’s “sole concern” related to a former Congressman who was unlikely to run for office again. Here, by contrast, petitioners’ speech focuses on the broader issue of support for the ACA, not on the voting record of a single candidate. Nor does SBA’s insistence that its previous statements were true render its fears of enforcement misplaced. After all, that insistence did not prevent the Commission from finding probable cause for a violation the first time.

525 Fed. Appx. 415, reversed and remanded.

13-193 Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus

Thomas, J.