Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf
Page Number: 26.0

2 

UNITED STATES v. STEVENS 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

Appeals—incorrectly,  in  my  view—declined  to  decide
whether §48 is unconstitutional as applied to respondent’s
videos and instead reached out to hold that the statute is 
facially  invalid.  Today’s  decision  does  not  endorse  the
Court  of  Appeals’  reasoning,  but  it  nevertheless  strikes 
down  §48  using  what  has  been  aptly  termed  the  “strong
medicine”  of  the  overbreadth  doctrine,  United  States  v. 
Williams,  553  U. S.  285,  293  (2008)  (internal  quotation
marks omitted), a potion that generally should be admin-
istered only as “a last resort.”  Los Angeles Police Dept. v. 
United Reporting Publishing Corp., 528 U. S. 32, 39 (1999) 
(internal quotation marks omitted).

Instead of applying the doctrine of overbreadth, I would 
vacate  the  decision  below  and  instruct  the  Court  of  Ap-
peals on remand to decide whether the videos that respon-
dent sold are constitutionally protected.  If the question of 
overbreadth  is  to  be  decided,  however,  I  do  not  think  the 
present  record  supports  the  Court’s  conclusion  that  §48
bans a substantial quantity of protected speech. 

I 
A  party  seeking  to  challenge  the  constitutionality  of  a
statute  generally  must  show  that  the  statute  violates  the 
party’s own rights.  New York v. Ferber, 458 U. S. 747, 767 
(1982).  The First Amendment overbreadth doctrine carves 
out  a  narrow  exception  to  that  general  rule.    See  id.,  at 
768;  Broadrick  v.  Oklahoma,  413  U. S.  601,  611–612 
(1973).  Because  an  overly  broad  law  may  deter  constitu-
tionally protected speech, the overbreadth doctrine allows 

—————— 

Respondent  55  (“Stevens’  speech  does  not  fit  within  any  existing 
category of unprotected, prosecutable speech”); id., at 57 (“[T]he record 
as  a  whole  demonstrates  that  Stevens’  speech  cannot  constitutionally
be  punished”).    Contrary  to  the  Court,  ante,  at  10–11,  n. 3  (citing  533
F. 3d  218,  231,  n. 13  (CA3  2008)  (en  banc)),  I  see  no  suggestion  in  the
opinion of the Court of Appeals that respondent did not preserve an as-
applied challenge.