Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/13-193_omq2.pdf
Page Number: 11

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

9 

Opinion of the Court 

requirement where he alleges “an intention to engage in a
course  of  conduct  arguably  affected  with  a  constitutional 
interest,  but  proscribed  by  a  statute,  and  there  exists  a 
credible  threat  of  prosecution  thereunder.”    Babbitt  v. 
Farm  Workers,  442  U. S.  289,  298  (1979).    Several  of  our 
cases  illustrate  the  circumstances  under  which  plaintiffs 
may  bring  a  preenforcement  challenge  consistent  with
Article III.
  In  Steffel,  for  example,  police  officers  threatened  to
arrest petitioner and his companion for distributing hand-
bills protesting the Vietnam War.  Petitioner left to avoid 
arrest;  his  companion  remained  and  was  arrested  and
charged  with  criminal  trespass.    Petitioner  sought  a  de-
claratory  judgment  that  the  trespass  statute  was  uncon-
stitutional as applied to him.

We  determined  that  petitioner  had  alleged  a  credible
threat of enforcement:  He had been warned to stop hand-
billing and threatened with prosecution if he disobeyed; he 
stated  his  desire  to  continue  handbilling  (an  activity  he
claimed  was  constitutionally  protected);  and  his  compan-
ion’s  prosecution  showed  that  his  “concern  with  arrest” 
was  not  “ ‘ chimerical.’ ”    415  U. S.,  at  459.  Under  those 
circumstances, we said, “it is not necessary that petitioner
first  expose  himself  to  actual  arrest  or  prosecution  to  be
entitled  to  challenge  a  statute  that  he  claims  deters  the 
exercise of his constitutional rights.”  Ibid. 

In Babbitt, we considered a preenforcement challenge to 
a  statute  that  made  it  an  unfair  labor  practice  to  encour-
age  consumers  to  boycott  an  “agricultural  product  . . .  by 
the use of dishonest, untruthful and deceptive publicity.’ ”  
442  U. S.,  at  301.    The  plaintiffs  contended  that  the  law
“unconstitutionally  penalize[d]  inaccuracies  inadvertently
uttered in the course of consumer appeals.”  Ibid. 

Building  on  Steffel,  we  explained  that  a  plaintiff  could 
bring  a  preenforcement  suit  when  he  “has  alleged  an
intention  to  engage  in  a  course  of  conduct  arguably  af-