Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
The Ohio statute prohibits certain “false statements” “during the course of any campaign for nomination or election to public office or office of a political party.” It is a crime for any person to “make a false statement concerning the voting record of a candidate or public official or to “post, publish, circulate, distribute, or otherwise disseminate a false statement concerning a candidate, either knowing the same to be false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. Any person acting on personal knowledge may file a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission alleging a violation of the false statement statute. If the Commission determines by “clear and convincing evidence” that a party has violated the false statement law, the Commission “shall” refer the matter to the relevant county prosecutor. Violation is a first-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to six months of imprisonment, a fine up to $5,000, or both. P is a “pro-life advocacy organization.” P publicly criticized various Members of Congress who voted for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). P issued a press release announcing its plan to “educate voters that their representative voted for a health care bill that includes taxpayer-funded abortion.” The press release listed Congressman Driehaus (D), who voted for the ACA. P also sought to display a billboard condemning that vote. The planned billboard would have read: “Shame on Steve Driehaus! Driehaus voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion.” The advertising company that owned the billboard space refused to display that message, however, after D’s counsel threatened legal action. D filed a complaint with the Commission alleging P had violated §§3517.21(B)(9) and (10) by falsely stating that he had voted for “taxpayer-funded abortion.” A panel held an expedited hearing. 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. Before the scheduled Commission hearing - P filed suit in Federal District Court, seeking 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 pending completion of the Commission proceedings. The Sixth Circuit denied P’s motion for an injunction pending appeal. P and D eventually agreed to postpone the full Commission hearing until after the election. D lost the election and withdrew his complaint. The Commission granted the motion. The District Court lifted the stay and P amended its complaint. P now alleged that the statutes are unconstitutional both facially and as applied and that P’s speech about D had been chilled. P claimed it “intends to engage in substantially similar activity in the future”; and that it “faced the prospect of its speech and associational rights again being chilled and burdened.” The District Court dismissed the suit as non-justiciable; neither suit presented a sufficiently concrete injury for purposes of standing or ripeness. The Sixth Circuit affirmed on ripeness using 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. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co