Justices allow challenge to law banning political lies

The Supreme Court came down forcefully on the side of free speech Monday, even in the case of lies told during a political campaign.

The justices ruled unanimously in a ruling by Justice Clarence Thomas that states that ban political speech they consider to be false can be sued in federal court, even if the individuals or organizations accused of lying were not prosecuted.

The ruling was a victory for an anti-abortion group that accused a Democratic congressman of favoring taxpayer-funded abortions because he voted for President Obama's health care law.

All the court said was that the Susan B. Anthony List could pursue its challenge to the Ohio law in federal court, not whether it deserved to win. But the significance could be widespread if the group ultimately wins, because it intends to spend millions of dollars spreading the same message in an effort to help Republicans win the Senate this fall.

"Denying prompt judicial review would impose a substantial hardship on petitioners, forcing them to choose between refraining from core political speech on the one hand, or engaging in that speech and risking costly commission proceedings and criminal prosecution on the other," Thomas wrote.

The justices said laws such as those in Ohio and 15 other states can chill free speech even when they are not enforced through criminal prosecution. They rejected the state's argument that the challengers had no right to sue.

"Today's decision by the court is a step toward victory for the freedom of speech and the broad coalition of groups who have supported SBA List throughout this case," said its president, Marjorie Dannenfelser. "The truth or falsity of political speech should be judged by voters, not government bureaucrats."

The question before the court was relatively narrow — whether the Susan B. Anthony List and an anti-tax group accused of lying had legal standing to challenge Ohio's ban, or whether the case was premature.

Two lower courts had thrown out the challenge because a lawsuit threatened by the accused congressman, Steve Driehaus, had stopped a billboard company from posting the advocacy groups' attacks. Driehaus then lost his 2010 election and dropped his complaint and legal threat.

The justices, however, saw ample reason to let lower courts address the meat of the issue before similar situations arise in the future.

"The elections are coming up," Justice Stephen Breyer said during oral arguments. "People have to know what they can say and what they can't say."

Follow @dsupercee