Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-179_o75q.pdf
Page Number: 31.0

Cite as:  599 U. S. ____ (2023) 

7 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

when it vetoed a bill passed by the legislature that called 
for  a  convention  to  revise  New  York’s  Constitution.    1  C. 
Lincoln, The Constitutional History of New York 623–626 
(1906) (Lincoln).  The State Assembly then issued a report 
lambasting “the Council for usurping the legislature’s role 
as the democratic representative of the people”; the legisla-
ture subsequently enacted a new bill that succeeded in call-
ing for a constitutional convention.  Barry 247; Lincoln 626–
629.    The  same  sentiment  arose  at  the  convention  when, 
echoing arguments that had also been made in Philadelphia 
against a federal council of revision, opponents of the Coun-
cil  argued  that  it  had  “ ‘usurped  the  power  of  judging  the 
expediency as well as the constitutionality of bills passed by 
the  legislature’ ”  and  that  it  had  “ ‘in  fact  become  a  third 
branch of the legislature.’ ”  Barry 247 (quoting N. Carter & 
W.  Stone,  Reports  of  the  Proceedings  and  Debates  of  the 
Convention of 1821, pp. 55, 79 (1821)).  Unsurprisingly, the 
Council was abolished, and New York’s 1821 Constitution 
placed the veto power solely in the Governor.  Barry 248. 
  When courts apply the facial overbreadth doctrine, they 
function in a manner strikingly similar to the federal coun-
cil of revision that the Framers rejected.  The doctrine con-
templates that courts can declare laws unconstitutional in 
the abstract without the law ever being applied against any 
individual in an unconstitutional manner.  Along the way, 
courts must examine the sum total of the law’s application 
to people who are not parties to any proceeding; courts then 
weigh the law’s various applications to determine if any un-
constitutional  applications  outweigh  the  law’s  constitu-
tional sweep or might “chill” protected speech.  That is noth-
ing short of a society-wide policy determination of the sort 
that  legislatures  perform.    Yet,  the  Court  has  never  even 
attempted to ground this doctrine “in the text or history of 
the First Amendment.”  Sineneng-Smith, 590 U. S., at ___–
___ (concurring  opinion) (slip  op.,  at  2–3).   Instead, it  has