Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/13-193_omq2.pdf
Page Number: 3.0

Cite as:  573 U. S. ____ (2014) 

1 

Opinion of the Court 

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
preliminary  print  of  the  United  States  Reports.  Readers  are  requested  to
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-
ington,  D. C.  20543,  of  any  typographical  or  other  formal  errors,  in  order
that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 13–193 
_________________ 

SUSAN B. ANTHONY LIST, ET AL., PETITIONERS v.
 
STEVEN DRIEHAUS ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
 

[June 16, 2014] 

JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court. 
Petitioners  in  this  case  seek  to  challenge  an  Ohio  stat-
ute  that  prohibits  certain  “false  statements”  during  the
course  of  a  political  campaign.    The  question  in  this  case
is  whether  their  preenforcement  challenge  to  that  law  is 
justiciable—and in particular, whether they have alleged a
sufficiently imminent injury for the purposes of Article III. 
We conclude that they have. 

I 
The  Ohio  statute  at  issue  prohibits  certain  “false  state-
ment[s]”  “during  the  course  of  any  campaign  for  nomina-
tion or election to public office or office of a political party.” 
Ohio  Rev.  Code  Ann.  §3517.21(B)  (Lexis  2013).    As  rele-
vant  here,  the  statute  makes  it  a  crime  for  any  person  to
“[m]ake a false statement concerning the voting record of a 
candidate  or  public  official,”  §3517.21(B)(9),  or  to  “[p]ost,
publish,  circulate,  distribute,  or  otherwise  disseminate  a 
false  statement  concerning  a  candidate,  either  knowing 
the same to be false or with reckless disregard of whether