Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 565

404  CITIZENS  UNITED  v.  FEDERAL  ELECTION  COMM’N 

Opinion of Stevens, J. 

Third-Party  Standing,  113  Harv.  L.  Rev.  1321,  1339  (2000) 
(hereinafter  Fallon));  accord,  ante,  at  376  (opinion  of  Rob­
erts, C. J.) (“Regardless whether we label Citizens United’s 
claim  a  ‘facial’  or  ‘as-applied’  challenge,  the  consequences  of 
the  Court’s  decision  are  the  same”).  The  majority  is  on 
ﬁrmer conceptual ground here.  Yet even if one accepts this 
part  of  Professor  Fallon’s  thesis,  one  must  proceed  to  ask 
which as-applied challenges, if successful, will “properly” in­
vite  or  entail  invalidation  of  the  underlying  statute.10  The 
paradigmatic  case  is  a  judicial  determination  that  the  legis­
lature  acted  with  an  impermissible  purpose  in  enacting  a 
provision,  as  this  carries  the  necessary  implication  that  all 
future  as-applied  challenges  to  the  provision  must  prevail. 
See Fallon 1339–1340. 

Citizens United’s as-applied challenge was not of this sort. 
Until this Court ordered reargument, its contention was that 
BCRA § 203 could not lawfully be applied to a feature-length 
video-on-demand ﬁlm (such as Hillary) or to a nonproﬁt cor­
poration  exempt from  taxation under  26 U. S. C.  § 501(c)(4)11 
and  funded  overwhelmingly  by  individuals  (such  as  itself). 
See  Brief  for  Appellant  16–41.  Success  on  either  of  these 
claims  would  not  necessarily  carry  any  implications  for  the 
validity of § 203 as applied to other types of broadcasts, other 

10 Professor  Fallon  proposes  an  intricate  answer  to  this  question  that 
the  majority  ignores.  Fallon  1327–1359.  It  bears  mention  that  our  col­
leagues have previously cited Professor Fallon’s article for the exact oppo­
site point from the one they wish to make today.  In Gonzales v.  Carhart, 
550 U. S. 124 (2007), the Court explained that “[i]t is neither our obligation 
nor within our traditional institutional role to resolve questions of consti­
tutionality  with  respect  to  each  potential  situation  that  might  develop,” 
and “[f]or this reason, ‘[a]s-applied challenges are the basic building blocks 
of  constitutional  adjudication.’ ”  Id.,  at  168  (opinion  for  the  Court  by 
Kennedy, J.) (quoting Fallon 1328 (second alteration in original)). 

11 Internal  Revenue  Code  § 501(c)(4)  applies,  inter  alia,  to  nonproﬁt  or­
ganizations  “operated  exclusively  for  the  promotion  of  social  welfare, . . .  
the  net  earnings  of  which  are  devoted  exclusively  to  charitable,  educa­
tional, or recreational purposes.”