Opinion ID: 1377930
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Potential As-Applied Challenge

Text: We express no view as to any as-applied challenge Stephens might assert on remand. Cf. Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 876, 893, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2010) (characterizing the distinction between as-applied and facial challenges as both instructive and necessary insofar as it goes to the breadth of the remedy employed by the Court). We know very little about Stephensapart from the fact a grand jury found probable cause to believe he trafficked in child pornographyand decline to speculate as to whether a curfew and electronic monitoring are unconstitutional as applied to him. Cf. Wash. State Grange, 552 U.S. at 457, 128 S.Ct. 1184 (internal citation omitted) (Our conclusion that these implementations . . . would be consistent with [the Constitution] is fatal to respondent's facial challenge. . . . In the absence of evidence, we cannot assume that Washington's voters will be misled. That factual determination must await an as-applied challenge.). The record before us is the quintessential fact-poor record about which the Supreme Court spoke in Sabri.