Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/13-193_omq2.pdf
Page Number: 8

6 

SUSAN B. ANTHONY LIST v. DRIEHAUS 

Opinion of the Court 

The  District  Court  dismissed  both  suits  as  non-
justiciable, concluding  that neither suit presented a suffi-
ciently  concrete  injury  for  purposes  of  standing  or  ripe-
ness.  The Sixth Circuit affirmed on ripeness grounds.  525
Fed.  Appx.  415.    The  Court  of  Appeals  analyzed  three 
factors to assess whether the case was ripe for review: (1)
the  likelihood  that  the  alleged  harm  would  come  to  pass; 
(2)  whether  the  factual  record  was  sufficiently  developed; 
and  (3)  the  hardship  to  the  parties  if  judicial  relief  were 
denied. 

Regarding  the  first  factor,  the  Sixth  Circuit  concluded
that  SBA’s  prior  injuries—the  probable-cause  determina-
tion  and  the  billboard  rejection—“do  not  help  it  show  an
imminent threat of future prosecution,” particularly where
“the Commission never found that SBA . . . violated Ohio’s 
false-statement  law.”  Id.,  at  420.  The  court  further  rea-
soned  that  it  was  speculative  whether  any  person  would 
file a complaint with the Commission in the future, in part
because Driehaus took a 2-year assignment with the Peace
Corps in Africa after losing the election.  Finally, the court
noted  that  SBA  has  not  alleged  that  “it  plans  to  lie  or 
recklessly  disregard  the  veracity  of  its  speech”  in  the 
future,  but  rather  maintains  that  the  statements  it  in-
tends to make are factually true.  Id., at 422. 

As  for  the  remaining  factors,  the  court  concluded  that
the  factual  record  was  insufficiently  developed  with  re-
spect to the content of SBA’s future speech, and that with-
holding judicial relief would not result in undue hardship 
because, in the time period leading up to the 2010 election, 
SBA  continued  to  communicate  its  message  even  after 
Commission proceedings were initiated.  The Sixth Circuit 
—————— 

torney (in their official capacities), and the Ohio Secretary of State (in
her  official  capacity)  as  defendants.    COAST  named  the  Commission, 
the  Commission’s  members  and  its  staff  attorney  (in  their  official
capacities), and the Ohio Secretary of State (in her official capacity) as
defendants.  All named defendants are respondents here.