October Term 2013 · Docket 13-193

Can a group sue to stop a state from threatening to prosecute its speech?

Susan B. Anthony List claims Ohio officials threatened criminal charges. The state argues no actual prosecution occurred.

Official caption
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Michael Carvin argued the threat creates a justiciable controversy.

    He claimed waiting for prosecution forces speakers to admit guilt.

    Michael Murphy argued the group failed to show a credible threat.

    He stated the alleged injury is not certainly impending.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests when a court can review a threat of prosecution. The group seeks a ruling before any charges file. The state demands the group wait for an actual trial.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 22, 2014.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Susan B. Anthony List wants a court ruling now to protect its speech.

Steven Driehaus wants the group to wait for an actual prosecution.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The group argues the threat of prosecution is a concrete injury.

The state argues the threat is too speculative to review.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Sotomayor asked why this case differs from Clapper.

Justice Ginsburg asked who specifically might be charged.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This dispute defines when citizens can challenge government threats. It shapes the balance between free speech and state enforcement. The outcome sets a standard for pre-enforcement legal challenges.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON