Opinion ID: 4693683
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: conclusion

Text: We conclude that the district court did not grant summary judgment too early, Burns’s proposed new mansion is not expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment, section 18-205(a) is not unconstitutionally vague, and Burns was not treated differently from other Palm Beach homeowners. Because Burns’s as-applied challenges to section 18-205(a) fail, we also must reject his facial challenges. See William Jefferson & Co. v. Bd. of Assessment & Appeals No. 3 ex rel. Orange Cnty., 69 USCA11 Case: 18-14515 Date Filed: 06/08/2021 Page: 70 of 136 695 F.3d 960, 963 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[A] facial challenge to a statute necessarily fails if an as-applied challenge has failed because the plaintiff must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the [statute] would be valid.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Diaz v. Patterson, 547 F.3d 88, 101 (2d Cir. 2008) (same). We affirm the district court’s summary judgment for the town in all respects. AFFIRMED. 70 USCA11 Case: 18-14515 Date Filed: 06/08/2021 Page: 71 of 136