COAST Candidates PAC v. Ohio Elections Commission

Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
13-1066 6th Cir. Not Argued Jun 23, 2014 TBD TBD OT 2013

Issue: (1) Whether, to challenge a speech-suppressive law, a party whose speech is arguably proscribed must prove that authorities would certainly and successfully prosecute him, as the Sixth Circuit holds, or should the court presume that a credible threat of prosecution exists absent desuetude or a firm commitment by prosecutors not to enforce the law, as seven other circuits hold; and (2) whether the Sixth Circuit erred by holding, in direct conflict with the Eighth Circuit, that state laws proscribing “false” political speech are not subject to pre-enforcement First Amendment review so long as the speaker maintains that its speech is true, even if others who may enforce the law manifestly disagree.

Judgment: Vacated and remanded on June 23, 2014.

DateProceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Mar 4 2014Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 7, 2014)
Mar 28 2014Order extending time to file response to petition to and including May 7, 2014.
May 7 2014Brief of respondents Ohio Elections Commission, et al. in opposition filed.
May 27 2014DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 12, 2014.
Jun 16 2014DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 19, 2014.
Jun 23 2014Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U. S. ___ (2014).
Jul 25 2014JUDGMENT ISSUED.
 
Share:
Term Snapshot
At a Glance
Awards