Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 48.0

4 

MOODY v. NETCHOICE, LLC 

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment 

The common-carrier doctrine may have weighty implica-
tions for the trade associations’ claims.  But, the same fac-
tual  barriers  that  preclude  the  Court  from  assessing  the
trade  associations’  claims  under  our  First  Amendment 
precedents also prevent us from applying the common-car-
rier doctrine in this posture.  At a minimum, we would need 
to pinpoint the regulated parties and specific conduct being
regulated.  On remand, however, both lower courts should 
continue to consider the common-carrier doctrine. 

II 
The opinions in these cases detail many of the considera-
ble hurdles that currently preclude resolution of the trade 
associations’  claims.    See  ante,  at  9–10;  ante,  at  1–4 
(BARRETT, J., concurring); post, at 22–32 (opinion of ALITO, 
J.).  The most significant problem of all, however, has yet to
be  addressed:  Federal  courts  lack  authority  to  adjudicate 
the trade associations’ facial challenges.

Rather than allege that the statutes impermissibly regu-
late them, the trade associations assert that H. B. 20 and 
S. B.  7072  are  actually  unconstitutional  in  most  or  all  of 
their  applications.  This  type  of  challenge,  called  a  facial
challenge, is “an attack on a statute itself as opposed to a
particular application.”  Los Angeles v. Patel, 576 U. S. 409, 
415 (2015).

Facial challenges are fundamentally at odds with Article
III.  Because Article III limits federal courts’ judicial power 
to cases or controversies, federal courts “lac[k] the power to
pronounce that [a] statute is unconstitutional” as applied to
nonparties.  Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, 
594 U. S. 595, 621 (2021) (THOMAS, J., concurring in part 
and  concurring  in  judgment)  (internal  quotation  marks
omitted).  Entertaining facial challenges in spite of that lim-
itation arrogates powers reserved to the political branches 
and disturbs the relationship between the Federal Govern-
ment  and  the  States.  The  practice  of  adjudicating  facial