Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus

(1) Whether, to challenge a speech-suppressive law, a party must prove that authorities would certainly and successfully prosecute or should the court presume that a credible threat of prosecution exists; and (2) whether the state laws proscribing “false” political speech are subject to pre-enforcement First Amendment review.

Petitioner brought an action challenging the state election commission's determination that a statement in political advertisement violated the state false statement statute. Petitioner later amended its complaint to allege that the commission proceedings following the complaint chilled its speech and associational rights. Respondent's moved to dismiss. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, granted the motion. Petitioner appealed and the Sixth Circuit held that Petitioner's claim was not ripe for adjudication.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide (1) whether, to challenge a speech-suppressive law, a party must prove that authorities would certainly and successfully prosecute or should the court presume that a credible threat of prosecution exists; and (2) whether the state laws proscribing “false” political speech are subject to pre-enforcement First Amendment review.