Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the existence of a “substantial risk” that harm would occur was sufficient to confer Article III standing
• holding that a plaintiff “should not be required to await and undergo a criminal prosecution as the sole means of seeking relief.”
• holding that a pre-enforcement challenge is ripe where a party can articulate a “credible threat” that a statute will be enforced against him
• holding that a pre-enforcement challenge is ripe where a party can articulate a “credible threat” that a statute will be enforced against him
• holding that plaintiffs had standing where they “pleaded specific statements they intend to make in future election cycles,” and “there is a history of past enforcement”
• holding that a claim was justiciable, even though the Court had not yet assessed its prudential ripeness, because “we have already concluded that .petitioners have alleged a sufficient Article III injury”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).