Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 62

18 

MOODY v. NETCHOICE, LLC 

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment 

limitation  of  federal-court  jurisdiction  to  actual  cases  or 
controversies.”  Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Organ-
ization, 426 U. S. 26, 37 (1976).  Because that requirement
precludes courts from judging and enjoining statutes as ap-
plied to nonparties, the Court should discontinue the prac-
tice of facial challenges. 

* 

* 

* 
The Court has recognized the problems that facial chal-
lenges pose, emphasizing that they are “disfavored,” Wash-
ington State Grange, 552 U. S., at 450, and “best when in-
frequent,”  Sabri,  541  U. S.,  at  608.    The  Court  reiterates 
those sentiments today.  Ante, at 9, 30.  But, while sidelin-
ing facial challenges provides some measure of relief, it ig-
nores the real problem.  Because federal courts are bound 
by Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement, holding a 
statute  unconstitutional  as  applied  to  nonparties  is  not
simply disfavored—it exceeds the authority granted to fed-
eral courts.  It is high time the Court reconsiders its facial 
challenge doctrine.