Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 625

524US2

Unit: $U95

[09-06-00 18:40:44] PAGES PGT: OPIN

580

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR ARTS v. FINLEY

Opinion of the Court

the Government may draw distinctions based on content and
Id., at 684–688.
viewpoint in making its funding decisions.
Three judges dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc,
maintaining that the panel’s decision gave the statute an “im-
plausible construction,” applied the “ ‘void for vagueness’
doctrine where it does not belong,” and extended “First
Amendment principles to a situation that the First Amend-
112 F. 3d 1015, 1016–1017 (CA9 1997).
ment doesn’t cover.”
We granted certiorari, 522 U. S. 991 (1997), and now

reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

II
A

Respondents raise a facial constitutional challenge to
§ 954(d)(1), and consequently they confront “a heavy burden”
in advancing their claim. Rust, supra, at 183. Facial inval-
idation “is, manifestly, strong medicine” that “has been em-
ployed by the Court sparingly and only as a last resort.”
Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U. S. 601, 613 (1973); see also
FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U. S. 215, 223 (1990) (noting that
“facial challenges to legislation are generally disfavored”).
To prevail, respondents must demonstrate a substantial risk
that application of the provision will lead to the suppression
of speech. See Broadrick, supra, at 615.

Respondents argue that the provision is a paradigmatic
example of viewpoint discrimination because it rejects any
artistic speech that either fails to respect mainstream values
or offends standards of decency. The premise of respond-
ents’ claim is that § 954(d)(1) constrains the agency’s ability
to fund certain categories of artistic expression. The NEA,
however, reads the provision as merely hortatory, and con-
tends that it stops well short of an absolute restriction. Sec-
tion 954(d)(1) adds “considerations” to the grant-making
process; it does not preclude awards to projects that might
be deemed “indecent” or “disrespectful,” nor place conditions
on grants, or even specify that those factors must be given