Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf
Page Number: 28.0

4 

UNITED STATES v. STEVENS 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

II 

The  overbreadth  doctrine  “strike[s]  a  balance  between 
competing  social  costs.”  Williams,  553  U. S.,  at  292. 
Specifically,  the  doctrine  seeks  to  balance  the  “harmful
effects”  of  “invalidating  a  law  that  in  some  of  its  applica-
tions  is  perfectly  constitutional”  against  the  possibility 
that “the threat of enforcement of an overbroad law [will] 
dete[r]  people  from  engaging  in  constitutionally  protected 
speech.”  Ibid.   “In  order  to  maintain  an  appropriate  bal-
ance, we have vigorously enforced the requirement that a 
statute’s  overbreadth  be  substantial,  not  only  in  an  abso-
lute sense, but also relative to the statute’s plainly legiti-
mate sweep.”  Ibid. 

In  determining  whether  a  statute’s  overbreadth  is  sub-
stantial,  we  consider  a  statute’s  application  to  real-world 
conduct,  not  fanciful  hypotheticals.    See,  e.g.,  id.,  at  301– 
302;  see  also  Ferber,  supra,  at  773;  Houston  v.  Hill,  482 
U. S.  451,  466–467  (1987).  Accordingly,  we  have  repeat-
edly  emphasized  that  an  overbreadth  claimant  bears  the 
burden  of  demonstrating,  “from  the  text  of  [the  law]  and 
from  actual  fact,”  that  substantial  overbreadth  exists. 
Virginia v. Hicks, 539 U. S. 113, 122 (2003) (quoting New 
York  State  Club  Assn.,  supra,  at  14;  emphasis  added;
internal  quotation  marks  omitted;  alteration  in  original). 
Similarly, “there must be a realistic danger that the stat-
ute  itself  will  significantly  compromise  recognized  First 
Amendment protections of parties not before the Court for 
it  to  be  facially  challenged  on  overbreadth  grounds.” 
Members  of  City  Council  of  Los  Angeles  v.  Taxpayers  for 
Vincent, 466 U. S. 789, 801 (1984) (emphasis added). 

III 
In  holding  that  §48  violates  the  overbreadth  rule,  the
Court  declines  to  decide  whether,  as  the  Government 
maintains,  §48  is  constitutional  as  applied  to  two  broad 
categories of depictions that exist in the real world: crush