Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1140_5368.pdf
Page Number: 49

Cite as:  585 U. S. ____ (2018) 

23 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

2012)  (unlicensed  providers  of  alternative  health  services
must  disclose  that  “he  or  she  is  not  a  licensed  physician” 
and  “the  services  to  be  provided  are  not  licensed  by  the
state”).  And  it  is  unremarkable  that  the  State  excluded 
the provision of family planning and contraceptive services
as  triggering  conditions.    Ante,  at  18–19.  After  all,  the 
State  was  seeking  to  ensure  that  “pregnant  women  in
California  know  when  they  are  getting  medical  care  from
licensed professionals,” and pregnant women generally do 
not need contraceptive services. 

Finally,  the  majority  concludes  that  the  Act  is  overly 
burdensome.  Ante,  at  19.  I  agree  that  “unduly  burden-
some  disclosure  requirements  might  offend  the  First 
Amendment.”  Zauderer, 471 U. S., at 651.  But these and 
similar claims are claims that the statute could be applied 
unconstitutionally,  not  that  it  is  unconstitutional  on  its 
face.  Compare New York State Club Assn., Inc. v. City of 
New  York,  487  U. S.  1,  14  (1988)  (a  facial  overbreadth
challenge must show “from actual fact” that a “substantial
number  of  instances  exist  in  which  the  Law  cannot  be 
applied  constitutionally”),  with  Chicago  v.  Morales,  527 
U. S.  41,  74  (1999)  (Scalia,  J.,  dissenting)  (an  as-applied 
challenge asks whether “the statute is unconstitutional as 
applied  to  this  party,  in  the  circumstances  of  this  case”).
And it will be open to the petitioners to make these claims
if  and  when  the  State  threatens  to  enforce  the  statute  in 
this way.  But facial relief is inappropriate here, where the
petitioners  “fail”  even  “to  describe  [these]  instances  of 
arguable  overbreadth  of  the  contested  law,”  Washington 
State  Grange  v.  Washington  State  Republican  Party,  552 
U. S.  442,  449–450,  n. 6  (2008),  where  “[n]o  record  was
made in this respect,” and where the petitioners thus have
not shown “from actual fact” that a “substantial number of 
instances exist in which the Law cannot be applied consti-
tutionally,” New York State Club Assn., supra, at 14. 

For  instance,  the  majority  highlights  that  the  statute