Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/13-193_omq2.pdf
Page Number: 20

18 

SUSAN B. ANTHONY LIST v. DRIEHAUS 

Opinion of the Court 

of the prudential ripeness doctrine in this case because the 
“fitness”  and  “hardship”  factors  are  easily  satisfied  here. 
First,  petitioners’  challenge  to  the  Ohio  false  statement 
statute presents an issue that is “purely legal, and will not 
be  clarified  by  further  factual  development.”    Thomas  v. 
Union  Carbide  Agricultural  Products  Co.,  473  U. S.  568, 
581  (1985).  And  denying  prompt  judicial  review  would 
impose a substantial hardship on petitioners, forcing them
to choose between refraining from core political speech on 
the  one  hand,  or  engaging  in  that  speech  and  risking 
costly  Commission  proceedings  and  criminal  prosecution 
on the other. 

* 

* 

* 

Petitioners in this case have demonstrated an injury in 
fact  sufficient  for  Article  III  standing.  We  accordingly 
reverse  the  judgment  of  the  United  States  Court  of  Ap-
peals for the Sixth Circuit and remand the case for further
proceedings  consistent  with  this  opinion,  including  a 
determination whether the remaining Article III standing 
requirements are met. 

It is so ordered.