Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-179_o75q.pdf
Page Number: 26

2 

UNITED STATES v. HANSEN 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

adult  adoption;  he  charged  them  up  to  $10,000  apiece, 
knowing full well that his scheme would not lead to citizen-
ship.  The Ninth Circuit even acknowledged below that “it 
is clear,” both “from previous convictions under the statute 
. . .  and  likely  from  [respondent’s]  conduct  here,  that 
[§1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)]  has  at  least  some  ‘plainly  legitimate 
sweep.’ ”  25 F. 4th 1103, 1106–1107 (2022).   
  Yet, instead of applying Congress’ duly enacted law to re-
spondent,  the  Ninth  Circuit  held  the  statute  unconstitu-
tional under this Court’s facial overbreadth doctrine.  Spe-
cifically, it took the doctrine as license to “speculate about 
imaginary cases and sift through an endless stream of fan-
ciful hypotheticals,” from which it concluded that the stat-
ute may be unconstitutional as applied to other (hypothet-
ical)  individuals  in  other  (hypothetical)  situations.    40 
F. 4th 1049, 1071 (2022) (Bumatay, J., dissenting from de-
nial of rehearing en banc) (internal quotation marks omit-
ted).  It then tallied up those hypothetical constitutional vi-
olations  and  determined  that  they  were  “substantial” 
enough to warrant holding the law unconstitutional in toto.  
25  F. 4th,  at  1109–1111.    That  line  of  reasoning  starkly 
demonstrates that this Court’s facial overbreadth doctrine 
offers a license for federal courts to act as “roving commis-
sions assigned to pass judgment on the validity of the Na-
tion’s laws.”  Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U. S. 601, 610–
611 (1973) (majority opinion of White, J.). 
  Such “roving commissions” are hardly a new idea.  When 
they  met  in  1787,  the  Constitution’s  Framers  were  well 
aware  of  a  body  that  wielded  such  power:  the  New  York 
Council  of  Revision  (Council).    Created  by  the  New  York 
Constitution of 1777, the Council consisted of the Governor, 
the  Chancellor,  and  the  judges  of  the  New York Supreme 
Court.    2  B.  Poore,  The  Federal  and  State  Constitutions, 
Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws of the United 
States 1328, 1332 (2d ed. 1878).  Noting that “laws incon-
sistent with the spirit of this constitution, or with the public