Opinion ID: 1292155
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: The Facial and As Applied Invalidity of a Statute

Text: ¶ 9 Nonconformity of a statute to the constitution's command may be either facial [18] or lie solely in the law's application. [19] This case does not implicate the facial fundamental-law orthodoxy of any statutory texts here in contest but rather the impermissible impact of their flawed application. ¶ 10 An as applied challenge seeks relief from a specific application of a facially valid statute to an individual (or class of individuals) who is under an allegedly impermissible legal restraint or disability as a result of the manner (or circumstances) in which the statute has been employed. [20] The attack launched under this rubric contemplates a factual analysis of the case to determine the circumstances in which the enactment has been utilized and to consider whether in those particular circumstances the employment deprives anyone to whom it was applied of a protected right. [21] While a law found deficient in its application to one plaintiff cannot be enforced against that person, it would escape the judiciary's general condemnation of invalidity. A facially unconstitutional statute, on the other hand, is void from its inception and cannot provide a basis for any claim of right or to any relief. [22] It confers no rights, bestows no power on anyone and justifies no act performed under its aegis. [23] A facial attack mounted in a judicial forum should not generally be entertained when an as applied challenge could resolve the controversy. [24]