Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 75

Cite as:  603 U. S. ____ (2024) 

13 

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment 

II 
NetChoice contends that the Florida and Texas statutes 
facially  violate  the  First  Amendment,  meaning  that  they
cannot be applied to anyone at any time under any circum-
stances  without  violating  the  Constitution.    Such  chal-
lenges  are  strongly  disfavored.  See  Washington  State 
Grange,  552  U. S.,  at  452.  They  often  raise  the  risk  of 
“ ‘premature interpretatio[n] of statutes’ on the basis of fac-
tually barebones records.”  Sabri v. United States, 541 U. S. 
600, 609 (2004).  They clash with the principle that courts
should neither “ ‘anticipate a question of constitutional law 
in advance of the necessity of deciding it’ ” nor “ ‘formulate
a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the 
precise  facts  to  which  it  is  to  be  applied.’ ”  Ashwander  v. 
TVA, 297 U. S. 288, 346–347 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concur-
ring).  And  they  “threaten  to  short  circuit  the  democratic
process by preventing laws embodying the will of the people 
from  being  implemented  in  a  manner  consistent  with  the 
Constitution.”  Washington State Grange, 552 U. S., at 451. 
Facial  challenges  also  strain  the  limits  of  the  federal 
courts’  constitutional  authority  to  decide  only  actual 
“Cases” and “Controversies.”  Art. III, §2.  “[L]itigants typi-
cally  lack  standing  to  assert  the  constitutional  rights  of
third parties.”  United States v. Hansen, 599 U. S. 762, 769 
(2023).  But  when  a  court  holds  that  a  law  cannot  be  en-
forced  against  anyone  under  any  circumstances,  it  effec-
tively grants relief with respect to unknown parties in dis-
putes that have not yet materialized. 

For these reasons, we have insisted that parties mount-
ing  facial  attacks  satisfy  demanding  requirements.    In 
United States v. Salerno, 481 U. S. 739, 745 (1987), we held 
that a facial challenger must “establish that no set of cir-
cumstances  exists  under  which  the  [law]  would  be  valid.” 
“While some Members of the Court have criticized the Sa-
lerno formulation,” all have agreed “that a facial challenge 
must  fail  where  the  statute  has  a  “ ‘plainly  legitimate