Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 77.0

Cite as:  603 U. S. ____ (2024) 

15 

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment 

NetChoice’s attempt to use “the party presentation rules”
as  grounds  for  blocking  our  consideration  of  the  question
whether it  satisfied the facial constitutionality test.  Tr. of 
Oral Arg. in No. 22–555, at 92.

Second, even if the States had not asked the lower courts 
to  reject  NetChoice’s  request  for  blanket  relief,  it  would 
have  been  improper  for  those  courts  to  enjoin  all  applica-
tions of the challenged laws unless that test was met.  “It is 
one thing to allow parties to forfeit claims, defenses, or lines
of argument; it would be quite another to allow parties to 
stipulate or bind [a court] to the application of an incorrect 
legal  standard.”  Gardner  v.  Galetka,  568  F. 3d  862,  879 
(CA10  2009);  see  also  Kairys  v.  Southern  Pines  Trucking, 
Inc., 75 F. 4th 153, 160 (CA3 2023) (“But parties cannot for-
feit  the  application  of  ‘controlling  law’ ”);  United  States  v. 
Escobar, 866 F. 3d 333, 339, n. 13 (CA5 2017) (per curiam)
(“ ‘A party cannot waive, concede, or abandon the applicable 
standard of review’ ” (quoting Ward v. Stephens, 777 F. 3d 
250, 257, n. 3 (CA5 2015)). 

Represented  by  sophisticated  counsel,  NetChoice  made 
the  deliberate  choice  to  mount  a  facial  challenge  to  both
laws, and in doing so, it obviously knew what it would have 
to show in order to prevail.  NetChoice decided to fight these
laws on these terms, and the Court properly holds it to that
decision. 

—————— 
is  “unlikely  to  prevail  on  the  merits  of  [its]  facial  First  Amendment 
challenge”);  Record  in  No.  4:21–CV–00220  (ND  Fla.),  Doc.  106,  p.  30
(“Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that their members actually [express
a message],” so there is “not a basis for sustaining Plaintiffs’ facial con-
stitutional challenge”); Reply Brief in No. 21–51178 (CA5), p. 8 (arguing
that NetChoice failed “to show at a bare minimum that [S. B. 20] is un-
constitutional  in  a  ‘substantial  number  of  its  applications’ ”  (quoting 
Americans  for  Prosperity  Foundation  v.  Bonta,  594  U. S.  595,  615 
(2021))); Record in No. 1:21–CV–00840 (WD Tex.), Doc. 39, p. 27 (because
“not all applications of H.B. 20 are unconstitutional,” “Plaintiffs’ delayed
facial challenge [can]not succeed”).