Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 55.0

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

11 

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment 

a  statute  is  valid  on  its  face,  a  court  must  determine  the 
statute’s  scope.    If  a  state  court  has  yet  to  determine  the 
scope of its statute (a common occurrence with facial chal-
lenges), the federal court must do so in the first instance.
Facial challenges thus increase the likelihood that federal 
courts must interpret novel state-law questions—a role typ-
ically and appropriately reserved for state courts. 

B 
In addition to their constitutional infirmities, facial chal-
lenges also create practical problems.  The case-or-controversy 
requirement  serves  as  the  foundation  of  our  adversarial 
system.  Rather  than  “ ‘sit[ting]  as  self-directed  boards  of 
legal inquiry and research,’ ” federal courts serve as “ ‘arbi-
ters of legal questions presented and argued by the parties
before them.’ ”   NASA v. Nelson,  562 U. S. 134, 147, n. 10 
(2011)  (quoting  Carducci  v.  Regan,  714  F. 2d  171,  177 
(CADC 1983) (opinion for the court by Scalia, J.)).  This sys-
tem  “assure[s]  that  the  legal  questions  presented  to  the
court will be resolved . . . in a concrete factual context con-
ducive to a realistic appreciation of the consequences of ju-
dicial action.”  Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans 
United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U. S. 
464, 472 (1982).

Facial challenges disrupt the adversarial system and in-
crease the risk of judicial error as a result.  A plaintiff rais-
ing a facial challenge need not have any direct knowledge
of how the statute applies to others.  In fact, since a facial 
challenge  may  be  brought  before  a  statute  has  been  en-
forced against anyone, a plaintiff often can only guess how
the statute operates—even in his own case.  For this reason, 
“[c]laims  of  facial  invalidity  often  rest  on  speculation,” 
Washington State Grange, 552 U. S., at 450, and “factually 
barebones records,” Sabri v. United States, 541 U. S. 600, 
609 (2004).  Federal courts are often called to give “prema-