Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/13-193_omq2.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

10 

SUSAN B. ANTHONY LIST v. DRIEHAUS 

Opinion of the Court 

fected  with  a  constitutional  interest,  but  proscribed  by  a 
statute,  and  there  exists  a  credible  threat  of  prosecution 
thereunder.”  Babbit,  supra,  at  298.    We  found  those  cir-
cumstances  present  in  Babbitt.  In  that  case,  the  law  “on 
its  face  proscribe[d]  dishonest,  untruthful,  and  deceptive 
publicity.”  442 U. S., at 302.  The plaintiffs had “actively 
engaged in consumer publicity campaigns in the past” and
alleged  “an  intention  to  continue”  those  campaigns  in  the
future.  Id.,  at  301.  And  although  they  did  not  “plan  to
propagate  untruths,”  they  argued  that  “ ‘ erroneous  state-
ment  is  inevitable  in  free  debate.’ ”    Ibid.  We  concluded 
that the plaintiffs’ fear of prosecution was not “imaginary
or  wholly  speculative,”  and  that  their  challenge  to  the 
consumer publicity provision presented an Article III case 
or controversy.  Id., at 302. 

Two other cases bear mention.  In Virginia v. American 
Booksellers  Assn.  Inc.,  484  U. S.  383  (1988),  we  held  that 
booksellers  could  seek  preenforcement  review  of  a  law 
making  it  a  crime  to  “ ‘knowingly  display  for  commercial 
purpose’ ”  material  that  is  “ ‘harmful  to  juveniles’ ”  as
Id.,  at  386.  At  trial,  the 
defined  by  the  statute. 
booksellers  introduced  16  books  they  believed  were  cov-
ered  by  the  statute  and  testified  that  costly  compliance 
measures  would  be  necessary  to  avoid  prosecution  for 
displaying  such  books.  Just  as in Babbitt  and  Steffel,  we 
determined  that  the  “pre-enforcement  nature”  of  the  suit
was not “troubl[ing]” because the plaintiffs had “alleged an 
actual and well-founded fear that the law will be enforced 
against them.”  484 U. S., at 393. 
  Finally,  in  Holder  v.  Humanitarian  Law  Project,  561 
U. S.  1  (2010),  we  considered  a  preenforcement  challenge 
to  a  law  that  criminalized  “ ‘ knowingly  provid[ing]  mate-
rial  support  or  resources  to  a  foreign  terrorist  organiza-
tion.’ ”    Id.,  at  8.  The  plaintiffs  claimed  that  they  had 
provided support to groups designated as terrorist organi-
zations  prior  to  the  law’s  enactment  and  would  provide