Skip to content

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)
03/04/2014Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 7, 2014)
03/28/2014Order extending time to file response to petition to and including May 7, 2014.
05/07/2014Brief of respondents Ohio Elections Commission, et al. in opposition filed.
05/27/2014DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 12, 2014.
06/16/2014DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 19, 2014.
06/23/2014Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U. S. ___ (2014).
07/25/2014JUDGMENT ISSUED.