Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 487 U.S. 1, 11-14, 108 S.Ct. 2225, 101 L.Ed.2d 1 (1988) (considering a facial challenge to the New York Human Rights Law, which forbade discrimination based on race and other factors). And in Taxpayers for Vincent, the Supreme Court considered a challenge to the constitutionality of a Los Angeles sign ordinance. Noting that the challenging party had not argued that the ordinance could never be validly applied, the Court characterized the attack on the ordinance as “a challenge to the ordinance as applied to [appellees’] activities” and limited its analysis to whether the ordinance was unconstitutional as applied. 466 U.S. at 802, 104 S.Ct. 2118. This court has also found laws unconstitutional as applied, but not facially. See, e.g., State v. Grossman, 636 N.W.2d 545, 551 (Minn.2001) (<HOLDING>); McDonnell v. Comm’r of Pub. Safety, 473 
 Holding statements: (A) holding  1130 to be unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiff (B) holding minnesotas patterned sex offender senfence enhancement statute unconstitutional as applied to one defendant and noting our doubts as to whether the statute could ever be constitutionally applied (C) holding that the death penalty is unconstitutional as applied to juvenile defendants (D) holding that the defendant could not be sentenced under the patterned sex offender statute if his offense occurred before the statute became effective (E) holding that the statute as applied violates the commerce clause
Output (English): holding  1130 to be unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiff