Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 76

14 

MOODY v. NETCHOICE, LLC 

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment 

sweep.” ’ ”  Washington State Grange, 552 U. S., at 449.  In 
First  Amendment  cases,  we  have  sometimes  phrased  the 
requirement as an obligation to show that a law “ ‘prohibits 
a  substantial  amount  of  protected  speech’ ”  relative  to  its 
‘ “plainly  legitimate  sweep.’ ”    Hansen,  599  U. S.,  at  770; 
Bonta,  594  U. S.,  at  615;  United  States  v.  Williams,  553 
U. S. 285, 292–293 (2008).14 

NetChoice  and  the  Federal  Government  urge  us  not  to 
apply any of these demanding tests because, they say, the 
States disputed only the “threshold question” whether their
laws “cover expressive activity at all.”  Tr. of Oral Arg. in 
No. 22–277, at 76; see also id., at 84, 125; Tr. of Oral Arg. 
in No. 22–555, at 92.  The Court unanimously rejects that 
argument—and for good reason.

First, the States did not “put all their eggs in [one] bas-
ket.”  Tr. of Oral Arg. in No. 22–277, at 76.  To be sure, they
argued that their newly enacted laws were valid in all their 
applications.  Ibid.  Both the Federal Government and the 
States almost always defend the constitutionality of all pro-
visions of their laws.  But Florida and Texas did not stop 
there.  Rather, as noted above, they went on to argue that 
NetChoice  had  failed  to  make  the  showing  required  for  a
facial  challenge.15   Therefore,  the  record  does  not  support 
—————— 

14 At oral argument, NetChoice represented that “it’s the plainly legit-
imate sweep test, which is not synonymous with overbreadth,” that gov-
erns these cases.  See Tr. of Oral Arg. in No. 22–277, p. 70; contra, ante, 
at 9 (suggesting that the overbreadth doctrine applies to all facial chal-
lenges brought under the First Amendment, including these cases).  This 
representation makes sense given that the overbreadth doctrine applies 
only when there is “a realistic danger that the statute itself will signifi-
cantly  compromise  recognized  First  Amendment  protections  of  parties 
not before the Court.”  Members of City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpay-
ers for Vincent, 466 U. S. 789, 801 (1984).  And here, NetChoice appears
to represent all—or nearly all—regulated parties. 

15 See Reply Brief in No. 21–12355 (CA11), p. 15 (“Plaintiffs—in their 
facial challenge—have failed to demonstrate that even a significant sub-
set of covered social media platforms engages in [expressive] conduct.” 
See also Brief for Appellants in No. 21–12355 (CA11), p. 20 (NetChoice