Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 57.0

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

13 

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment 

even simple fact patterns, a court has little chance of deter-
mining  whether  a  novel,  never-before-enforced  state  law 
can be constitutionally enforced against nonparties without 
resorting  to  mere  speculation.  For  cases  such  as  these, 
where the constitutional analysis depends on complex, fact-
specific questions, the task becomes impossible. 

D 
Facial challenges are particularly suspect given their or-
igins.  They appear to be the product of two doctrines that
are  themselves  constitutionally  questionable,  vagueness 
and overbreadth. 

At the time of the founding, it was well understood that 
federal courts could hold a statute unconstitutional only in-
sofar  as  necessary  to  resolve  a  particular  case  or  contro-
versy.  See supra, at 5–6.  The Founders were certainly fa-
miliar with alternative systems that provided for the free-
floating review of duly enacted statutes.  For example, the
New York Constitution of 1777 created a Council of Revi-
sion, composed of the Governor, Chancellor, and New York 
Supreme Court.  See Hansen, 599 U. S., at 786 (THOMAS, J., 
concurring).    The  Council  of  Revision  could  object  to  “any
measure of a [prospective] bill” based on “not only [its] con-
stitutionality . . . but also [its] policy.”  Id., at 787.  If the 
Council lodged an objection, the Legislature’s only options
were to “conform to [the Council’s] objections, override them
by a two-thirds vote of both Houses, or simply let the bill
die.”  Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted).

In  our  Constitution,  the  Founders  refused  to  create  a 
council of revision or involve the Federal Judiciary in the 
business of reviewing statutes in the abstract.  “Despite the 
support  of  respected  delegates  . . .  the  Convention  voted 
against creating a federal council of revision on four differ-
ent  occasions.  No  other  proposal  was  considered  and  re-
jected  so  many  times.”  Id.,  at  789  (citation  omitted).    In-
stead,  the  Founders  created  a  Judiciary  with  “only  the