Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/13-193_omq2.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2013 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

SUSAN B. ANTHONY LIST ET AL. v. DRIEHAUS ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

No. 13–193.  Argued April 22, 2014—Decided June 16, 2014 

Respondent  Driehaus,  a  former  Congressman,  filed  a  complaint  with
the Ohio Elections Commission alleging that petitioner Susan B. An-
thony List (SBA) violated an Ohio law that criminalizes certain false
statements  made during the course of a political campaign.  Specifi-
cally, Driehaus alleged that SBA violated the law when it stated that 
his  vote  for  the  Patient  Protection  and  Affordable  Care  Act  (ACA)
was  a  vote  in  favor  of  “taxpayer  funded  abortion.”    After  Driehaus 
lost his re-election bid, the complaint was dismissed, but SBA contin-
ued  to  pursue  a  separate  suit  in  Federal  District  Court  challenging 
the law on First Amendment grounds.  Petitioner Coalition Opposed 
to  Additional  Spending  and  Taxes  (COAST)  also  filed  a  First
Amendment  challenge  to  the  Ohio  law,  alleging  that  it  had  planned 
to disseminate materials presenting a similar message but refrained 
due to the proceedings against SBA.  The District Court consolidated 
the  two  lawsuits  and  dismissed  them  as  nonjusticiable,  concluding 
that neither suit presented a sufficiently concrete injury for purposes
of  standing  or  ripeness.    The  Sixth  Circuit  affirmed  on  ripeness 
grounds. 

Held: Petitioners have alleged a sufficiently imminent injury for Article

III purposes.  Pp. 7–18.

(a) To  establish  Article  III  standing,  a  plaintiff  must  show,  inter 
alia, an “injury in fact,” which must be “concrete and particularized”
and “actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical.’ ”  Lujan v. 
Defenders  of  Wildlife,  504  U. S.  555,  560.    When  challenging  a  law 
prior  to  its  enforcement,  a  plaintiff  satisfies  the  injury-in-fact  re-
quirement  where  he  alleges  “an  intention  to  engage  in  a  course  of 
conduct  arguably  affected  with  a  constitutional  interest,  but  pro-
scribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution