Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 50.0

6 

MOODY v. NETCHOICE, LLC 

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment 

branch [is vested] with an exclusive form of power,” and “no
branch can encroach upon the powers confided to the oth-
ers.”  Patchak v. Zinke, 583 U. S. 244, 250 (2018) (plurality 
opinion) (internal quotation marks omitted).  In the Judi-
cial Branch’s case, it is vested with the “ultimate and su-
preme” power of judicial review.  Chicago & Grand Trunk 
R. Co. v. Wellman, 143 U. S. 339, 345 (1892).  That power
includes the authority to refuse to apply a statute enacted 
and approved by the other two branches of the Federal Gov-
ernment.  But, the power of judicial review can be wielded
only  in  specific  circumstances  and  to  limited  ends—to  re-
solve cases and controversies.  Without that limitation, the 
Judiciary  would  have  an  unchecked  ability  to  enjoin  duly
enacted  statutes.  Respecting  the  case-or-controversy  re-
quirement is therefore necessary to “preven[t] the Federal 
Judiciary from intruding upon the powers given to the other
branches, and confin[e] the federal courts to a properly ju-
dicial role.”  Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc., 581 U. S. 
433,  438  (2017)  (internal  quotation  marks  and  alteration 
omitted). 

2 
Facial  challenges  conflict  with  Article  III’s  case-or-
controversy  requirement because they ask a federal court
to decide whether a statute might conflict with the Consti-
tution in cases that are not before the court. 

To bring a facial challenge under our precedents, a plain-
tiff must ordinarily “establish that no set of circumstances
exists under which the Act would be valid.”  United States 
v. Salerno, 481 U. S. 739, 745 (1987).  In the First Amend-
ment  context,  we  have  sometimes  applied  an  even  looser 
standard, called the overbreadth doctrine.  The overbreadth 
doctrine requires a plaintiff to establish only that a statute
“prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech,” “rela-
tive to [its] plainly legitimate sweep.”  United States v. Wil-
liams, 553 U. S. 285, 292 (2008).