Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
SBA List & COAST v. Driehaus brief of State Respondents

SBA List & COAST v. Driehaus brief of State Respondents

Ratings: (0)|Views: 31|Likes:
Brief filed by the State of Ohio in the U.S. Supreme Court case SBA List & COAST v. Driehaus, et al defending Ohio's political speech chilling false statements law.
Brief filed by the State of Ohio in the U.S. Supreme Court case SBA List & COAST v. Driehaus, et al defending Ohio's political speech chilling false statements law.

More info:

Published by: Finney Law Firm, LLC on Mar 29, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/05/2014

pdf

text

original

 
No. 13-193
In the Supreme ourt of the United States
 ________________________________
S
USAN
B.
 
 A 
NTHONY
L
IST AND
C
OALITION
O
PPOSED TO
 A 
DDITIONAL
S
PENDING AND
T
 AXES
,
 Petitioners,
v. S
TEVEN
D
RIEHAUS
,
 
IMBERLY
 A 
LLISON
,
 
D
EGEE
W
ILHELM
,
 
H
ELEN
B
 ALCOLM
,
 
T
ERRANCE
C
ONROY 
,
 
L
 YNN
G
RIMSHAW
,
 
J
 AYME
S
MOOT
,
 
W
ILLIAM
 V
 ASIL
,
 
P
HILIP
R
ICHTER
,
 
O
HIO
E
LECTIONS
C
OMMISSION
,
 AND
J
ON
H
USTED
,
Respondents
.  __________________________________
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT  ___________________________________
BRIEF OF STATE RESPONDENTS  ___________________________________
MICHAEL DEWINE  Attorney General of Ohio ERIC E. MURPHY* State Solicitor
*Counsel of Record
 SAMUEL C. PETERSON PETER K. GLENN-APPLEGATE Deputy Solicitors 30 East Broad St., 17th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614-466-8980 eric.murphy@ohioattorneygeneral.gov
Counsel for State Respondents
 
 
QUESTION PRESENTED
Is a First Amendment challenge to a statute ripe when plaintiffs have alleged only a generalized and subjective chill of their speech and when they have established facts showing neither that they intend to engage in a course of conduct affected by the statute nor that they face any threat of an actual criminal prosecution under the statute by the named defend-ants?
 
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
QUESTION PRESENTED .......................................... i
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................ ii
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... iv
 
INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 1
 
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................... 5
 
I.
 
OHIO’S FALSE-STATEMENT LAWS .............. 5
 
 A.
 
History Of Ohio’s False-Statement Laws ............................................................ 5
 
B.
 
Current False-Statement Laws ................. 6
 
C.
 
Commission Procedures ............................. 8
 
II.
 
PETITIONERS’ COMPLAINTS ........................ 9
 
III.
 
PROCEEDINGS BELOW ................................ 12
 
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................. 16
 
 ARGUMENT ............................................................ 18
 
I.
 
RIPENESS SETS CONSTITUTIONAL  AND PRUDENTIAL LIMITS ON THE JUDICIARY ...................................................... 22
 
 A.
 
Constitutionally, Ripeness Requires  Adequate Allegations Of A
Future
 Injury To Establish A
 Present
 “Case” ...... 22
 
B.
 
Prudentially, Ripeness Considers The Propriety Of Judicial Review ................... 29
 
II.
 
PETITIONERS’ AMENDED COMPLAINTS DO NOT ASSERT CONSTITUTIONALLY OR PRUDENTIALLY RIPE CLAIMS ............. 32
 
 A.
 
Petitioners Do Not Adequately Allege  An Article III Future Injury .................... 32
 

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->