Opinion ID: 2575877
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: plaintiffs may assert a facial challenge to h.b. 213

Text: ¶ 19 When challenging the constitutionality of a statute, Plaintiffs carry the burden of establishing that the statute is unconstitutional either on its face or as applied to the facts of the given case. [11] In this instance, because the statutory changes set forth in H.B. 213 are not yet effective, the parties may assert only a facial challenge. They concede that an as applied challenge would be improper. ¶ 20 The State contests the availability to Plaintiffs of a facial challenge, relying on United States v. Salerno, a case in which the United States Supreme Court required the challenger to establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the [challenged] Act would be valid in order to succeed. [12] However, in its reliance on Salerno, the State fails to acknowledge that both the United States Supreme Court and this court have discredited, at least to some extent, the application of the Salerno standard. The facts of this case present circumstances where Salerno is not the correct standard and need not be followed. ¶ 21 When state courts interpret their own state law, the United States Supreme Court has not required adherence to Salerno. The plurality opinion in City of Chicago v. Morales clarified that the assumption that state courts must apply the restrictive Salerno test is incorrect as a matter of law; moreover it contradicts `essential principles of federalism.' [13] We agree. The Court explained that because state courts are not bound by federal law when assessing the constitutionality of state law under state constitutions, they need not follow the narrow interpretation of facial challenges found in Salerno. [14] ¶ 22 The Morales Court also suggested, by referencing scholarly articles on the matter, that in state law cases in state courts, a more appropriate threshold for determining the validity of facial challenges may simply exist in establishing the substantive merits of the casethe unconstitutionality of the legislation. [15] ¶ 23 More importantly in this situation, we have rejected the Salerno standard in some instances and have discredited its universal application. For instance, in State v. Gardner, an Eighth Amendment Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause case, we determined that the [s]tate's reliance on the due process standard`no set of circumstances exists under which the act would be valid' [from Salerno ][was] ... misplaced. [16] We relied rather on the broader Supreme Court standard for cruel and unusual punishment cases found in Gregg v. Georgia . [17] ¶ 24 We have also declined to apply Salerno in takings cases. In Smith Investment Company v. Sandy City , for example, our court of appeals turned to the substantive law in determining whether a facial challenge was proper. [18] In other words, the court looked specifically to the constitutionality of the legislation affecting the challenger's property. [19] The court held that if plaintiffs do not allege any injury due to the enforcement of the statute, there is as yet no concrete controversy regarding the application of the specific provisions and regulations. Thus, the only question before this court is whether the mere enactment of the statutes and regulations constitutes a taking.  [20] This is an approach we endorse. Many other courts in the United States have likewise relied on the substantive merits of the takings claim in determining the validity of a facial challenge. [21] ¶ 25 Plaintiffs' facial challenge is validly brought under both United States Supreme Court jurisprudence and our own case law. As articulated by the Supreme Court in Morales, an essential principle of federalism is that states have the authority to create their own constitutional law when reviewing claims brought under their own state constitution. Here, Plaintiffs have filed their takings claim under the Utah Constitution in Utah state court. Consequently, we are not required to follow Salerno's restrictive test for facial challenges, and we elect not to in this instance. Rather, we conclude that because Plaintiffs UPEA and Roes 1 through 5 have undisputed standing, the ultimate test for the propriety of bringing a facial challenge lies in the substantive merits of the claim. Thus, our analysis turns on the question of whether H.B. 213 constitutes an unconstitutional taking as alleged.