Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/13pdf/13-193_omq2.pdf
Page Number: 6

4 

SUSAN B. ANTHONY LIST v. DRIEHAUS 

Opinion of the Court 

stating that he had voted for “taxpayer-funded abortion.”2 
Because  Driehaus  filed  his  complaint  29  days  before  the 
general  election,  a  Commission  panel  held  an  expedited 
hearing.  On  October  14,  2010,  the  panel  voted  2  to  1  to 
find  probable  cause  that  a  violation  had  been  committed. 
The  full  Commission  set  a  hearing  date  for  10  business 
days 
later,  and  the  parties  commenced  discovery.
Driehaus  noticed  depositions  of  three  SBA  employees  as 
well as individuals affiliated with similar advocacy groups.
He  also  issued  discovery  requests  for  all  evidence  that 
SBA would rely on at the Commission hearing, as well as
SBA’s  communications  with  allied  organizations,  political
party  committees,  and  Members  of  Congress  and  their 
staffs. 

On  October  18,  2010—after  the  panel’s  probable-cause
determination,  but  before  the  scheduled  Commission 
hearing—SBA  filed  suit  in  Federal  District  Court,  seek- 
ing  declaratory  and  injunctive  relief  on  the  ground  that
§§3517.21(B)(9) and (10) violate the First and Fourteenth
Amendments  of  the  United  States  Constitution.    The 
District Court stayed the action under Younger v. Harris, 
401 U. S. 37 (1971), pending completion of the Commission
proceedings.  The Sixth Circuit denied SBA’s motion for an 
injunction pending appeal.  Driehaus and SBA eventually
agreed to postpone the full Commission hearing until after 
the election. 

When  Driehaus  lost  the  election  in  November  2010,  he 
moved  to  withdraw  his  complaint  against  SBA.  The 
Commission granted the motion with SBA’s consent.  Once 
the Commission proceedings were terminated, the District
Court lifted the stay and SBA amended its complaint.  As 
—————— 

2 The dispute about the falsity of SBA’s speech concerns two different
provisions  of  the  ACA:  (1)  the  subsidy  to  assist  lower  income  individ-
uals in paying insurance premiums, and (2) the direct appropriation of
federal  money  for  certain  health  programs  such  as  community  health 
centers.  See Brief for Petitioners 4–5.