HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.congcourts/fjccpfs0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
CASE STUDIES IN EMERGENCY ELECTION LITIGATION
Constitutionality of Proscriptions
on False Statements About Candidates
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus (1:10-cv-720)
and Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending & Taxes
v. Ohio Elections Commission (1:10-cv-754)
(Timothy S. Black and Susan ]. Dlott, S.D. Ohio)
Two actions filed in late October 2010 challenged the constitution-
ality of an Ohio statute proscribing false statements about candi-
dates for office. The judge in the first case stayed the federal case
pending state executive and judicial proceedings, pursuant to
Younger v. Harris. The judge in the second case also denied imme-
diate injunctive relief, and the two cases were consolidated for fur-
ther proceedings after the election. Dismissals for lack of live con-
troversies were reversed by the Supreme Court. The court of ap-
peals affirmed a holding that the statute was unconstitutional and
dismissal of a candidate's defamation counterclaim. The parties
agreed to an attorney fee award of $1.3 million.
Subject: Campaign activities. Topics: Campaign materials;
matters for state courts; recusal;
The Susan B. Anthony List, a public interest organization dedicated to oppo-
sition of abortion and support for the election of women to Congress who
share that opposition, filed a federal action in the Southern District of Ohio
on October 18, 2010, challenging the constitutionality of an Ohio statute
proscribing false statements about candidates for office.' With its complaint,
the List filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary
injunction.2 The court originally assigned the case to Judge Susan J. Dlott,
but she recused herself because an attorney in the case worked at her hus-
band's law firm,4 so the case was transferred on the day that it was filed to
Judge Timothy S. Black.'
1. Complaint, Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, No. 1:10-cv-720 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 18,
2010), D.E. 1 [hereinafter Susan B. Anthony List Complaint]; Susan B. Anthony List v.
Driehaus, 573 U.S. _, _, 134 S. Ct. 2334, 2339 (2014) (p.4 of slip opinion filed at U.S.
No. 13-193); Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 814 F.3d 466, 470 (6th Cir. 2016); Susan B.
Anthony List v. Driehaus, 779 F.3d 628, 631 (6th Cir. 2015); Susan B. Anthony List v.
Driehaus, 805 F. Supp. 2d 412, 415 (S.D. Ohio 2011); see Anti-Abortion Group Seeks to Erect
Billboards Critical ofDriehaus, Cincinnati Enquirer, Oct. 19, 2010.
2. Motion, Susan B. Anthony List, No. 1:10-cv-720 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 18, 2010), D.E. 2.
3. For this report, Tim Reagan interviewed Judge Dlott and her law clerk Sarah Fair-
weather by telephone on July 30, 2012.
4. Interview with Hon. Timothy S. Black, Aug. 16, 2012; Interview with Hon. Susan J.
Dlott and her law clerk Sarah Fairweather, July 30, 2012.
Tim Reagan interviewed Judge Black for this report by telephone.
5. Transfer Order, Susan B. Anthony List, No. 1:10-cv-720 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 18, 2010),
D.E. 6.
Federal Judicial Center 5/5/2018
1](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.congcourts/fjccpfs0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)