Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 560.0

Cite as: 558 U. S. 310 (2010) 

399 

Opinion of Stevens, J. 

trary  to  the  fundamental  principle  of  judicial  restraint  that 
courts  should  neither  anticipate  a  question  of  constitutional 
law  in  advance  of  the  necessity  of  deciding  it  nor  formulate 
a  rule  of  constitutional  law  broader  than  is  required  by  the 
precise facts to which it is to be applied.”  Washington State 
Grange, 552 U. S., at 450 (internal quotation marks omitted). 
Scanting that principle “threaten[s] to short circuit the dem­
ocratic process by preventing laws embodying the will of the 
people from being implemented in a manner consistent with 
the  Constitution.”  Id.,  at  451.  These  concerns  are  height­
ened  when  judges  overrule  settled  doctrine  upon  which  the 
legislature  has  relied.  The  Court  operates  with  a  sledge 
hammer  rather  than  a  scalpel  when  it  strikes  down  one  of 
Congress’  most  signiﬁcant  efforts  to  regulate  the  role  that 
corporations  and  unions  play  in  electoral  politics.  It  com­
pounds the offense by implicitly striking down a great many 
state laws as well. 

The  problem  goes  still  deeper,  for  the  Court  does  all  of 
this  on  the  basis  of  pure  speculation.  Had  Citizens  United 
maintained  a  facial  challenge,  and  thus  argued  that  there 
are  virtually  no  circumstances  in  which  BCRA  § 203  can  be 
applied  constitutionally,  the  parties  could  have  developed, 
through  the  normal  process  of  litigation,  a  record  about  the 
actual effects of § 203, its actual burdens and its actual bene­
ﬁts,  on  all  manner  of  corporations  and  unions.4  “Claims  of 
facial invalidity often rest on speculation,” and consequently 
“raise the risk of premature interpretation of statutes on the 

4 Shortly before Citizens  United mooted the issue by  abandoning its fa­
cial  challenge,  the  Government  advised  the  District  Court  that  it  “re­
quire[d] time to develop a factual record regarding [the] facial challenge.” 
1:07–cv–2240–RCL–RWR,  Docket  Entry  No.  47,  p.  4  (Mar.  26,  2008).  By 
reinstating  a  claim  that  Citizens  United  abandoned,  the  Court  gives  it 
a  perverse  litigating  advantage  over  its  adversary,  which  was  deprived 
of  the  opportunity  to  gather  and  present  information  necessary  to  its 
rebuttal.