Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 54

10 

MOODY v. NETCHOICE, LLC 

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment 

challenges makes this point clear.  With an as-applied chal-
lenge, the Judiciary intrudes only as much as necessary on 
the  will  “ ‘of  the  elected  representatives  of  the  people.’ ”  
Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican 
Party, 552 U. S. 442, 451 (2008).  Assuming a court adheres 
to traditional remedial limits, a successful as-applied chal-
lenge only prevents application of the statute against that
plaintiff.  The Executive Branch remains free to enforce the 
statute in all of its other applications.  And, the court’s de-
cision provides some notice to the political branches, ena-
bling the Executive Branch to tailor future enforcement of
the statute to avoid violating the Constitution or Congress
to amend the statute. 

Facial challenges, however, force the Judiciary to take a 
maximalist  approach.    A  single  plaintiff  can  immediately 
call upon a federal court to declare an entire statute uncon-
stitutional, even before it has been applied to him.  The po-
litical branches have no opportunity to correct course, mak-
ing legislation an all-or-nothing proposition.  The end result 
is  that  “the  democratic  process”  is  “short  circuit[ed]”  and
“laws embodying the will of the people [are prevented] from
being implemented in a manner consistent with the Consti-
tution.”  Ibid. 

In  a  similar  vein,  facial  challenges  distort  the  relation-
ship between the Federal Government and the States.  The 
Constitution “establishes a system of dual sovereignty be-
tween the States and the Federal Government.”  Gregory v. 
Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452, 457 (1991).  The States retain all 
powers “not delegated” to the Federal Government and not 
“prohibited by [the Constitution] to the States.”  Amdt. 10. 
Facial challenges can upset this division by shifting power 
from the States to the Federal Judiciary.  Most obviously, 
when a state law is challenged, a facial challenge prevents
that State from applying its own statute in a constitutional 
manner.  But, facial challenges can also force federal courts 
to appropriate the role of state courts.  To analyze whether