Opinion ID: 1746855
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Application of the Overbreadth Doctrine

Text: Initially, respondent may challenge the constitutionality of Canon 7(B)(1)(d) on its face. We accept respondent's argument that the overbreadth doctrine applies to this case. That doctrine permits `attacks on overly broad statutes with no requirement that the person making the attack demonstrate that his own conduct could not be regulated by a statute drawn with the requisite narrow specificity.'  Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 612, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973), quoting Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, 486, 85 S.Ct. 1116, 14 L.Ed.2d 22 (1965). It thus allows a party to challenge a law written so broadly that it may inhibit the constitutionally protected speech of third parties, even though the party's own conduct may be unprotected. Los Angeles Police Dep't v. United Reporting Publishing Corp., 528 U.S. 32 ___, ___, 120 S.Ct. 483, 488-489, 145 L.Ed.2d 451, 458-461 (1999). The overbreadth doctrine is an exception to the traditional rule of practice that a person to whom a statute may constitutionally be applied will not be heard to challenge that statute on the ground that it may conceivably be applied unconstitutionally to others, in other situations not before the Court. Broadrick, supra at 610, 93 S.Ct. 2908. The traditional rule reflects two `cardinal principles' of our constitutional order: the personal nature of constitutional rights and the prudential limitations on constitutional adjudication. Los Angeles Police Dep't, supra, 120 S.Ct. at 489. The overbreadth doctrine, on the other hand, rests on the prediction that third parties will refrain from protected expression because of the statute. Los Angeles City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 799, 104 S.Ct. 2118, 80 L.Ed.2d 772 (1984). Under these circumstances, the transcendent value to all society of constitutionally protected expression justifies an exception to the traditional rule of practice. Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 521, 92 S.Ct. 1103, 31 L.Ed.2d 408 (1972). The overbreadth doctrine is not, however, casually employed, even in a case involving a First Amendment challenge. Los Angeles Police Dep't, supra, 120 S.Ct. at 489. Because it is manifestly, strong medicine, the Court employs it with hesitation. Broadrick, supra at 613, 93 S.Ct. 2908. Therefore, substantial overbreadth is required. Id. at 615, 93 S.Ct. 2908. [T]here must be a realistic danger that the statute itself will significantly compromise recognized First Amendment protections of parties not before the Court for it to be facially challenged on overbreadth grounds. Los Angeles City Council, supra at 801, 104 S.Ct. 2118. Canon 7(B)(1)(d) authorizes disciplinary action for a candidate's speech during an election campaign, which is properly characterized as core political speech. McIntyre, supra at 347, 115 S.Ct. 1511. Further, the canon sweeps broadly, regulating all form[s] of public communication. That the canon is not a criminal statute is of no moment. Los Angeles Police Dep't, supra, 120 S.Ct. at 488. A candidate for judicial office who speaks out during the election risks adverse consequences for the content of his speech. The United States Supreme Court has, in fact, considered facial challenges to attorney disciplinary rules that attach adverse consequences to public noncommercial speech. Compare Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 111 S.Ct. 2720, 115 L.Ed.2d 888 (1991) (considering a challenge to a disciplinary rule that restricted extrajudicial statements regarding pending adjudicative proceedings), with Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 379-381, 97 S.Ct. 2691, 53 L.Ed.2d 810 (1977) (holding that the First Amendment overbreadth doctrine does not apply to advertising by members of a profession). Accordingly, a realistic danger exists that Canon 7(B)(1)(d) will compromise recognized First Amendment protections of parties not before this Court. Thus, respondent may facially challenge the canon on overbreadth grounds. Los Angeles City Council, supra at 801, 104 S.Ct. 2118.