Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-251_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 26.0

Cite as:  594 U. S. ____ (2021) 

3 

THOMAS, J., concurring
Opinion of THOMAS, J. 

593 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., 
at 4) (“a court cannot, consistent with separation of powers, 
enjoin  enforcement  of a  statute  where  enforcement  would 
be lawful”).  And the principle that application of a law is
always  unlawful  if  “ ‘a  substantial  number  of  its  applica-
tions are unconstitutional’ ” “lacks any basis in the Consti-
tution’s text” and “contravenes traditional standing princi-
ples.”  Sineneng-Smith,  590  U. S.,  at  ___  (THOMAS,  J., 
concurring) (slip op., at 1). 

Third, and relatedly, this Court also lacks the power “to
‘pronounce that the statute is unconstitutional in all appli-
cations,’ ” even if the Court suspects that the law will likely 
be unconstitutional in every future application as opposed 
to  just  a  substantial  number  of  its  applications.    Borden, 
593  U. S.,  at  ___  (THOMAS,  J.,  concurring)  (slip  op.,  at  3) 
(quoting Chicago v. Morales, 527 U. S 41, 77 (1999) (Scalia, 
J., dissenting)).  A declaration that the law is “facially” un-
constitutional “seems to me no more than an advisory opin-
ion—which a federal court should never issue at all.”  593 
U. S., at ___ (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 3).  Courts 
cannot  “strike  down  statutory  text”  or  resolve  the  legal
rights of litigants not before them.  Ibid. (brackets and in-
ternal quotation marks omitted).

Despite the Court’s use of the term “facially unconstitu-
tional,” I join Part III–A, which finds that California’s law 
fails exacting scrutiny, because the Court does not say that
it  is  “provid[ing]  relief  beyond  the  parties  to  the  case.” 
Trump  v.  Hawaii,  585  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2018)  (THOMAS,  J., 
concurring) (slip op., at 6).  The Court simply (and correctly)
holds that the District Court properly enjoined the law as 
applied to petitioners.  Ante, at 19.  The Court’s judgment
is  also  not  dependent  on  its  overbreadth  determination. 
Ante, at 12–15.  One can understand the Court’s reasoning 
as based on the fundamental legal problems with the law 
(that are obvious in light of the facts of this suit) that will, 
in  practice,  prevent  California  from  lawfully  applying  the