Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-277_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 56.0

12 

MOODY v. NETCHOICE, LLC 

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment 

ture interpretations of statutes in areas where their consti-
tutional application might be cloudy.”  Raines, 362 U. S., at 
22.  In short, facial challenges ask courts to resolve poten-
tially  thorny  constitutional  questions  with  little  factual
background and briefing by a party who may not be affected 
by the outcome. 

C 
The problems with facial challenges are particularly evi-
dent in the two cases before us.  Even though the trade as-
sociations  challenge  two  state  laws,  the  state  actors  have
been  left  out  of  the  picture.  State  officials  had  no  oppor-
tunity to tailor the laws’ enforcement.  Nor could the legis-
latures amend the statutes before they were preliminarily 
enjoined.  In  addition,  neither  set  of  state  courts  had  a 
chance to interpret their own State’s law or “accord [that] 
law  a  limiting  construction  to  avoid  constitutional  ques-
tions.”  Washington  State  Grange,  552  U. S.,  at  450.    In-
stead, federal courts construed these novel state laws in the 
first instance.  And, they did so with little factual record to 
assist them.  The trade associations’ reliance on our ques-
tionable  associational-standing  doctrine  is  partially  to
blame.2  But, the fact that the trade associations raise facial 
challenges has undeniably played a significant role.  With 

—————— 

2 The trade associations do not allege that they are subject to H. B. 20
and  S. B.  7072,  but  have  brought  suit  to  vindicate  the  rights  of  their 
members.  There is thus not a single party in these suits that is actually
regulated by the challenged statutes and can explain how specific provi-
sions will infringe on their First Amendment rights.  Instead, the trade 
associations assert their understanding of how the challenged statutes 
will regulate nonparties.

As I have recently explained, “[a]ssociational standing raises constitu-
tional concerns.”  See FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 602 U. S. 
367, 399 (2024) (concurring opinion).  Associational standing appears to
conflict with Article III’s injury and redressability requirements in many
of the same ways as facial challenges.  I have serious doubts that either 
trade association has standing to vicariously assert a member’s injury. 
See id., at 400.