Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 124.0

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

9 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

more  than  necessary  to  remedy  a  complaining  party’s  in-
jury.  Washington State Grange v. Washington State Repub-
lican Party, 552 U. S. 442, 451 (2008). 

As a result, the path for a litigant pursuing a facial chal-
lenge is deliberately difficult.  Typically, a plaintiff seeking 
to render a law unenforceable in all of its applications must
show  that  the  law  cannot  be  constitutionally  applied
against anyone in any situation.  United States v. Stevens, 
559 U. S. 460, 472–473 (2010).  This Court has carved out 
an exception to this high bar for overbreadth challenges un-
der the First Amendment.  Some suggest this exception is 
ill-advised.  United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 590 U. S. ___, 
___–___  (2020)  (THOMAS,  J.,  concurring)  (slip  op.,  at  5–6).
But  even  in  First  Amendment  overbreadth  challenges,  a 
plaintiff  still  must  show  that  the  law  in  question  has  “ ‘a 
substantial number of . . . applications [ that] are unconsti-
tutional,  judged  in  relation  to  the  statute’s  plainly  legiti-
mate sweep.’ ” Stevens, 559 U. S., at 473 (quoting Washing-
ton State Grange, 552 U. S., at 449, n. 6); see also Stevens, 
559 U. S., at 481–482 (holding law unconstitutional under 
First  Amendment  where  “impermissible  applications  . . . 
far outnumber[ed] any permissible ones”).

Today, it seems any of these standards would demand too
much.  Instead of asking whether the law has a “substantial 
number  of  unconstitutional  applications”  compared  to  its
“legitimate sweep,” the plurality asks whether the law will
impose a “ ‘substantial obstacle’ ” for a “ ‘large fraction’ ” of
“ ‘those women for whom the provision is an actual rather 
than an irrelevant restriction.’ ”  Ante, at 39.  Concededly,
the  two  tests  sound  similar—after  all,  who  could  say
whether  a  “substantial  number”  is  more  or  less  than  a 
“large  fraction”?    But  notice  the  switch  at  the  end,  where 
the plurality limits our focus to women for whom the law is 
an “actual” restriction.  Because of that limitation, it doesn’t 
matter how many women continue to have convenient ac-