▁on ▁beh alf ▁of ▁a ▁un anim ous ▁Supreme ▁Court , ▁revers ed ▁the ▁jud g ement ▁of ▁the ▁two ▁lower ▁courts ▁and ▁rem and ed ▁the ▁case ▁to ▁the ▁lower ▁courts ▁so ▁that ▁the ▁S BA ▁List ▁could ▁purs ue ▁its ▁constitution al ▁rights ▁against ▁the ▁Ohio ▁law . ▁ ▁The ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁ruled ▁on ▁whether ▁S BA ▁List ▁could ▁move ▁forward ▁with ▁its ▁challenge ▁to ▁the ▁law , ▁given ▁that ▁the ▁proceed ings ▁against ▁it ▁had ▁been ▁stopped ▁by ▁former ▁Congress man ▁D rie haus . ▁▁ ▁Thomas ▁wrote ▁that ▁the ▁" P et ition ers ▁have ▁alleg ed ▁a ▁cred ible ▁threat ▁of ▁enfor cement ▁of ▁the ▁Ohio ▁law ". ▁ ▁Thomas ▁wrote ▁that ▁in ▁the ▁case ▁there ▁was ▁a ▁cred ible ▁threat ▁of ▁harm ▁in ▁the ▁form ▁of ▁a ▁bur den ▁im posed ▁on ▁the ▁elect oral ▁speech , ▁where ▁S BA ▁List ▁is ▁being ▁forced , ▁even ▁if ▁they ▁ultimately ▁prev ail , ▁to ▁di vert ▁significant ▁time ▁and ▁resources ▁to ▁h ire ▁legal ▁coun sel ▁and ▁respond ▁to ▁discovery ▁requests ▁in ▁the ▁cru cial ▁days ▁before ▁an ▁election . ▁ ▁Law ▁struck ▁down ▁by ▁district ▁court ▁After ▁the ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁decision , ▁the ▁S BA ▁List ▁challeng ed ▁the ▁constitution ality ▁of ▁the ▁Ohio ▁law ▁in ▁federal ▁court ▁in ▁the ▁United ▁States ▁District ▁Court ▁for ▁the ▁Southern ▁District ▁of ▁Ohio ▁in ▁Susan ▁B . ▁Anthony ▁List ▁v . ▁Ohio ▁E lections ▁Commission . ▁On ▁September ▁ 1 1 , ▁ 2 0 1 4 , ▁Judge ▁Tim