Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 53.0

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

9 

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment 

act.”  Massachusetts  v.  Mellon,  262  U. S.  447,  488  (1923). 
Resolving facial challenges thus violates Article III.1 

3 
Adjudicating facial challenges also intrudes upon powers
reserved to the Legislative and Executive Branches and the
States.  When a federal court decides an issue unnecessary 
for resolving a case or controversy, the Judiciary assumes
authority beyond what the Constitution granted.  Supra, at 
5–6.  That necessarily alters the balance of powers: When
one  branch  exceeds  its  vested  power,  it  becomes  stronger
relative to the other branches.  See Free Enterprise Fund v. 
Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U. S. 477, 
500 (2010).

Moreover, by exceeding their Article III powers, federal 
courts  risk  interfering  with  the  executive  and  legislative
functions.  Facial challenges enable federal courts to review
the constitutionality of a statute in many or all of its appli-
cations—often  before  the  statute  has  even  been  enforced. 
In  practice,  this  provides  federal  courts  a  “general  veto 
power . . . upon the legislation of Congress.”  Muskrat, 219 
U. S., at 357.  But, the Judicial Branch has no such consti-
tutional role in lawmaking.  When courts take on the super-
visory role of judging statutes in the abstract, they thus “as-
sume a position of authority over the governmental acts of
another  and  co-equal  department,  an  authority  which
plainly [they] do not possess.”  Mellon, 262 U. S., at 489. 

Comparing the effects of as-applied challenges and facial 

—————— 

1 This is not to say that federal courts can never adjudicate a constitu-
tional claim if a plaintiff styles it as a facial challenge.  Whenever a plain-
tiff alleges a statute is unconstitutional in many or all of its applications,
that argument nearly always includes an allegation that the statute is
unconstitutional  as  applied  to  the  plaintiff.    Federal  courts  are  free  to 
consider challenged statutes as applied to the plaintiff before them and 
limit  any  relief  accordingly.    See  generally  Americans  for  Prosperity 
Foundation v. Bonta, 594 U. S. 595, 618–619 (2021); id., at 621 (THOMAS, 
J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).