As-applied and facial challenges and third-party standing

Harvard Law Review

Volumn 114, Issue 6, 2000, Pages 1321-

  Fallon Jr , Richard H ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0042229410     PISSN: 0017811X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/1342351     Document Type: Review

References (3)

1. See, e.g., United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 20-21 (1960); Yazoo & Miss. Valley R.R. v. Jackson Vinegar Co., 226 U.S. 217, 219-20 (1912).
2. See, e.g., National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569, 580 (1998) ("Facial invalidation is, manifestly, strong medicine that has been employed by the Court sparingly and only as a last resort." (quoting Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 613 (1973)) (internal quotation marks omitted)); FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 223 (1990) (noting that facial challenges to legislation are generally disfavored).
3. See, e.g., United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987); Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253, 269 n.18 (1984); see also New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 768-69 (1982) (advocating the limited and cautious use of overbreadth doctrine); Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 612-13 (same).