573 U.S. 149 (2014)
Susan B. Anthony List is a pro-life advocacy organization.1 During the 2010 election cycle, SBA publicly criticized Members of Congress who voted for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, including then-Congressman Steve Driehaus.2 SBA issued a press release announcing its plan to educate voters that their representative voted for a health care bill that includes taxpayer-funded abortion.3 SBA also sought to display a billboard in Driehaus's district reading "Shame on Steve Driehaus! Driehaus voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion."4 The advertising company refused to display the message after Driehaus's counsel threatened legal action.5
On October 4, 2010, Driehaus filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission alleging that SBA violated the state's false statement statute by making false statements concerning his voting record.6 A Commission panel held an expedited hearing.7 On October 14, 2010, the panel voted 2 to 1 to find probable cause that a violation had been committed.8 The parties then began discovery.9
On October 18, 2010, SBA filed suit in federal district court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on First Amendment grounds.10 The district court stayed the action under Younger v. Harris pending completion of the Commission proceedings.11 After Driehaus lost his re-election bid in November 2010, he moved to withdraw his complaint.12 The Commission granted the motion with SBA's consent.13 SBA then amended its complaint to allege that it intends to engage in substantially similar activity in the future and faces the prospect of its speech being chilled again.14
The district court consolidated SBA's suit with a separate suit by the Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes.15 COAST alleged that it had refrained from disseminating materials criticizing Driehaus's vote for the ACA due to the proceedings against SBA and desires to make similar statements about other candidates but has been deterred.16 The district court dismissed both suits as nonjusticiable for lack of sufficiently concrete injury for standing or ripeness.17 The Sixth Circuit affirmed on ripeness grounds.18 The Supreme Court granted certiorari.19
Whether petitioners have alleged a sufficiently imminent injury for Article III purposes in their preenforcement challenge to the Ohio false statement statute?20
To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must show an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.21 When challenging a law prior to its enforcement, a plaintiff satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement where he alleges an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder.22
Yes. Petitioners have alleged a sufficiently imminent injury for Article III purposes.23
SBA and COAST pleaded specific statements they intend to make in future election cycles concerning support for the ACA.24 This intended conduct involves political speech and is therefore affected with a constitutional interest.25 Their intended speech is arguably proscribed by the Ohio false statement statute, which sweeps broadly to cover statements concerning a candidate's voting record.26 A Commission panel previously found probable cause that SBA violated the law with similar statements.27
The threat of enforcement is credible and substantial.28 There is a history of past enforcement against SBA.29 Any person may file a complaint with the Commission.30 The Commission handles numerous false statement complaints each year.31 Respondents have not disavowed enforcement.32 The threat of Commission proceedings is backed by the additional threat of criminal prosecution.33
Petitioners have alleged a sufficiently imminent injury for Article III purposes in their preenforcement challenge to the Ohio false statement statute.34