Fact and fiction about facial challenges

California Law Review

Volumn 99, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 915-974

  Fallon, Richard H ^a  

^a HARVARD LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 80052511518     PISSN: 00081221     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (408)

1. For recent scholarly discussions, see, for example, Luke Meier, Facial Challenges and the Separation of Powers, 85 IND. L.J. 1557 (2010).
2. Gillian Metzger, Facial and As-Applied Challenges Under the Roberts Court, 36 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 773, 798 (2009).
3. Nathaniel Persily & Jennifer S. Rosenberg, Defacing Democracy: The Changing Nature and Rising Importance of As-Applied Challenges in the Supreme Court's Recent Election Law Decisions, 93 MINN. L. Rev. 1644 (2009).
4. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, The Subjects of the Constitution, 62 STAN. L. REV. 1209, 1273-79 (2010).
5. Symposium, The Roberts Court: Distinguishing As-Applied Versus Facial Challenges, 30 HASTINGS CONST. L.Q. 563 (2009).
6. Kevin C. Walsh, Partial Unconstitutionality, 85 N.Y.U. L. REV. 738 (2010).
7. See, e.g., Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 130 S. Ct. 876, 892-96 (2010).
8. Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 450 (2008).
9. Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 156-68 (2007).
10. Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of N. New Eng., 546 U.S. 320, 328-31 (2006).
11. Compare Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 892-96 (asserting the appropriateness of entertaining a facial challenge to a statute regulating political speech) (majority opinion).
12. See Richard H. Fallon, Jr., As-Applied and Facial Challenges and Third-Party Standing, 113 HARV. L. REV. 1321 (2000).
13. But see Wash. State Grange, 552 U.S. at 450 ("[Fjacial challenges are disfavored.").
14. Sabri v. United States, 541 U.S. 600, 608 (2004) ("recalling that facial challenges are best when infrequent").
15. RICHARD H. FALLON, JR., JOHN F. MANNING, DANIEL J. MELTZER, & DAVID L. SHAPIRO, HART AND WECHSLER'S THE FEDERAL COURTS AND THE FEDERAL SYSTEM 163 (6th ed. 2009) (referring to "the Court's characteristic refusal to adjudicate facial challenges") [hereinafter hart & wechsler].
16. See, e.g., Marc Isserles, Overcoming Overbreadth: Facial Challenges and the Valid Rule Requirement, 48 AM. U. L. REV. 359, 439 (1998) (reporting that "the doctrinal tests that constitute the main part of constitutional adjudication" make facial challenges "more readily available than the Court, when invoking the indispensability of facts, might otherwise admit").
17. Michael Dorf, Facial Challenges to State and Federal Statutes, 46 STAN. L. REV. 235, 238 (1994) (asserting that the principle laid out by the Supreme Court in Salerno as a limit on facial challenges "is wrong" because "[i]t neither accurately reflects the Court's practice" nor is "consistent with a wide array of legal practices").
18. Matthew D. Adler, Rights Against Rules: The Moral Structure of American Constitutional Law, 97 MICH. L. REV. 1, 157 (1998) (emphasis omitted).
19. But see Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of N. New Eng., 546 U.S. 320, 329 (2006) ("[T]he 'normal rule' is. . . that a 'statute may. .. be declared invalid to the extent that it reaches too far, but otherwise left intact.'")
20. (quoting Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 504 (1985)) (second omission in original).
21. See, e.g., FCC v. Beach Commc'n, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 314 (1993) ("This standard of review is a paradigm of judicial restraint.").
22. See, e.g.. Hooper v. Bernalillo Cnty. Assessor, 472 U.S. 612 (1985) (finding that a New Mexico statute affording tax exemptions to some veterans but not others failed rational basis scrutiny).
23. Richard H. Fallon, Jr., Making Sense of Overbreadth, 100 YALE L.J. 853 (1991). Apart from this confessed error, I otherwise stand by the main elements of my earlier analyses. I shall not, however, attempt a systematic synthesis in this Article.
24. See Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483, 495 (1954).
25. See, e.g., United States v. Playboy Entm't Group, 529 U.S. 803, 813 (2000).
26. R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 391-92 (1992).
27. On severability, see, e.g., David H. Gans, Severability as Judicial Lawmaking, 76 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 639 (2008).
28. John Copeland Nagle, Severability, 72 N.C. L. REV. 203 (1993).
29. Robert L. Stern, Separability and Separability Clauses in the Supreme Court, 51 HARV. L. REV. 76 (1937).
30. Adrian Vermeule, Saving Constructions, 85 GEO. L.J. 1945 (1997). Severability doctrine can be understood as having two components. One applies to separately denominated statutory provisions or linguistically distinctive bits of statutory text; it addresses the feasibility and propriety of enforcing the remaining portions of a statute after other textually identifiable portions have been deemed constitutionally invalid. (Pubitemid 127437021)
31. See Gillian E. Metzger, Facial Challenges and Federalism, 105 COLUM. L. REV. 873, 886 (2005) (noting that severability of statutory applications is governed by the same principles as the separation of invalid statutory provisions). I have previously conceptualized the severance of applications as the functional equivalent of hypothesized statutory "sub-rules" that an actual statutory text may be imagined as subsuming. For discussion, see infra note 49 and associated text.
32. See, e.g., Sabri v. United States, 541 U.S. 600, 609 (2004).
33. United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987).
34. Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 474 (1974).
35. Kevin C. Walsh, Frames of Reference and the "Turn to Remedy" in Facial Challenge Doctrine, 36 HASTINGS CONST. L.Q. 667, 667 (2009).
36. In the past, both the Court and commentators applied the label "facial" when the party challenging a statute "put[] into issue an explicit rule of law, as formulated by the legislature or [a lower] court, and" based her claim of unconstitutionality on the facts of her own case "only insofar as it is necessary to establish that the rule served as a basis for decision." PAUL M. BATOR, DANIEL J. MELTZER, & DAVID L. SHAPIRO, HART AND WECHSLER'S THE FEDERAL COURTS AND THE FEDERAL SYSTEM 662 (3d ed. 1988).
37. In the case of the Supreme Court, the doctrine of precedent is especially important, because the Court's precedents on issues of federal law bind all inferior courts. See, e.g., State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20 (1997).
38. Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 511 U.S. 298, 312-13 (1994).
39. Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989). By contrast, imagine that Congress enacts a statute forbidding a particular abortion technique and that Dr. Spock, a resident of Cambridge, Massachusetts, successfully sues in federal district court in Massachusetts for a declaratory judgment that the statute is invalid "on its face."
40. Imagine further that the First Circuit affirms and that the Supreme Court denies certiorari. Under the doctrine of issue preclusion, Spock cannot be prosecuted for violating the statute. See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF JUDGMENTS § 27 (1982) ("When an issue of fact or law is actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment, and the determination is essential to the judgment, the determination is conclusive in a subsequent action between the parties, whether on the same or a different claim.").
41. Under the doctrine of precedent, district courts in the First Circuit would also need to dismiss prosecutions against other doctors. But doctors in other circuits would remain subject to prosecution. See, e.g., Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922, 931 (1975) ("[Njeither declaratory nor injunctive relief can directly interfere with enforcement of contested statutes or ordinances except with respect to the particular federal plaintiffs.").
42. Doctors who had not been parties to the case could not invoke the doctrines of claim or issue preclusion, and although the First Circuit's ruling might have persuasive authority, it would not bind other circuits. See Jeffrey C. Dobbins, Structure and Precedent, 108 MICH L. REV. 1453, 1463 (2010) (reviewing "the standard model of precedent, " under which "the bindingness of a prior decision turns most clearly on whether that prior decision was issued by a court with the power of appellate (or discretionary) review over the court deciding a subsequent case.").
43. Cf. Graham v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2011, 2030 (2010) (holding that offenders under eighteen may not be sentenced to life in prison without parole for nonhomicide crimes).
44. See, e.g., Doe v. Reed, 130 S. Ct. 2811, 2816-18 (2010).
45. See, e.g., Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 130 S. Ct. 876, 892-96 (2010) (sustaining a "facial challenge" to Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 but not questioning the validity of other parts of the Act).
46. Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 895 (1992) (finding a single provision of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act that required married women to notify their husbands before obtaining abortions unless specified exceptions applied to be facially invalid).
47. David L. Franklin, Facial Challenges, Legislative Purpose, and the Commerce Clause, 92 IOWA L. REV. 41, 53 n.55 (2006) (observing that a facial challenge can be directed at only one provision of a statute).
48. United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987).
49. Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, 472 U.S. 491 (1985).
50. United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17 (1960).
51. Yazoo & Miss. Valley R.R. v. Jackson Vinegar Co., 226 U.S. 217 (1912).
52. See HENRY M. HART, JR. & HERBERT WECHSLER, THE FEDERAL COURTS AND THE FEDERAL SYSTEM 176(1953).
53. See, e.g., RICHARD H. FALLON, JR., DANIEL J. MELTZER, & DAVID L. SHAPIRO, HART AND WECHSLER'S THE FEDERAL COURTS AND THE FEDERAL SYSTEM 181-82 (5th ed. 2003) (querying whether the Supreme Court should have inquired into the separability of the challenged statute before rejecting a facial challenge) [hereinafter Hart & wechsler's 5th edition].
54. See Henry Paul Monaghan, Overbreadth, 1981 SUP. CT. REV. 1, 3 [hereinafter Monaghan, Overbreadth].
55. see also Henry Paul Monaghan, Harmless Error and the Valid Rule Requirement, 1989 SUP. CT. REV. 195 (considering whether harmless error practice violates the valid rule requirement).
56. quoting Liverpool, N.Y. & Phila. S.S. Co. v. Comm'rs of Emigration, 113 U.S. 33, 39(1885).
57. For a sympathetic account of the overbreadth doctrine as it had developed under the Warren Court, see Note, The First Amendment Overbreadth Doctrine, 83 HARV. L. REV. 844 (1970).
58. See Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 615 (1973).
59. New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 771 (1982).
60. See, e.g., Sabri v. United States, 541 U.S. 600, 609-10 (2004) (listing "relatively few settings" in which "we have recognized the validity of facial attacks alleging overbreadth").
61. quoting United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 22 (1960).
62. See, e.g., Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd. v. Coll. Sav. Bank, 527 U.S. 627, 639 (1999).
63. Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 82-83 (2000).
64. See, e.g., Coll. Sav. Bank, 527 U.S. at 638-18 (Patent Remedy Act).
65. See JESSE H. CHOPER, ET AL., CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: CASES-COMMENTS-QUESTIONS (10th ed. 2006).
66. See U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 828-36 (1995).
67. See Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 447-49 (1998).
68. INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 952-59(1983).
69. See Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008).
70. See United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 627 (2001).
71. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S.549, 559-68(1995).
72. See U.S. Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1, 32 (1977).
73. See Polar Tankers, Inc. v. City of Valdez, 129 S. Ct. 2277 (2009).
74. See, e.g., W. Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy, 512 U.S. 186, 199 (1994).
75. C & A Carbone, Inc. v. Clarkstown, 511 U.S. 383, 389-94 (1994).
76. Bendix Autolite Corp. v. Midwesco Enters., Inc., 486 U.S. 888, 894 (1988).
77. New Energy Co. of Indiana v. Limbach, 486 U.S. 269, 275-80 (1988).
78. Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. N.Y. State Liquor Auth., 476 U.S. 573, 576 (1986).
79. Sporhase v. Nebraska, 458 U.S. 941, 958 (1982).
80. Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322, 336-38 (1979).
81. City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617, 628-29 (1978).
82. Dean Milk Co. v. Madison, 340 U.S. 349, 356 (1951).
83. Baldwin v. Seelig, 294 U.S. 511, 527-28 (1935).
84. See, e.g., Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd., 130 S. Ct. 3138 (2010).
85. Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714, 736 (1986).
86. Buckley v. Valeo, 414 U.S. 1 (1976).
87. See Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 238-40 (1995).
88. United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. 128(1871).
89. See, e.g., Lunding v. N.Y. State Appeals Tribunal, 522 U.S. 287, 315 (1998).
90. Hicklin v. Orbeck, 437 U.S. 518, 534 (1978).
91. See, e.g., Haywood v. Drown, 129 S. Ct. 2108 (2009).
92. Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525, 540-53 (2001).
93. See, e.g., United States v. Stevens, 130 S. Ct. 1577 (2010).
94. Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 130 S. Ct. 876, 913 (2010).
95. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal., 535 U.S. 234, 258 (2002).
96. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc'y v. Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2005).
97. Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525, 533-36 (2001).
98. United States v. Playboy Entm't Group, 529 U.S. 803, 827 (2000).
99. Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 883 (1997).
100. Mclntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334, 348-53 (1995).
101. R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 502 U.S. 105, 123 (1991).
102. Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publ'g Co., 486 U.S. 750 (1988).
103. Bd. of Airport Comm'rs v. Jews for Jesus, 482 U.S. 569, 573 (1987).
104. Hudnut v. Am. Booksellers Ass'n, 475 U.S. 1001 (1986).
105. FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364, 402 (1984).
106. Va. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748, 750, 773 (1976).
107. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
108. Miami Herald v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 259 (1974).
109. Chi. Police Dep't v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 102 (1972).
110. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 448-49 (1969).
111. Staub v. Baxley, 355 U.S. 313 (1958).
112. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).
113. Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 451 (1938).
114. See, e.g., Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 913.
115. See, e.g., Lorillard Tobacco, 533 U.S. at 533-36.
116. See, e.g., Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 317 (2000).
117. Bd. of Educ. of Kiryas Joel v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687, 705 (1994).
118. Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 597 (1987).
119. Thornton v. Caldor, 472 U.S. 703, 710-11 (1985).
120. Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 61 (1985).
121. Larkin v. Grendel's Den, 459 U.S. 116 (1982).
122. Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 42-3 (1980).
123. Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 109 (1968).
124. This line of cases starts with Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1867).
125. See, e.g., Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 335, 335-36 (1976) (plurality opinion).
126. Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 285-305 (1976) (plurality opinion).
127. See, e.g., Sniadach v. Family Fin. Corp., 308 U.S. 47 (1969).
128. See, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
129. Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 922 (2000).
130. City of Chi. v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 60-64 (1999).
131. Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 887-98 (1992).
132. Moore v. E. Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977).
133. U.S. Dep't of Agric. v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 543 (1973).
134. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 166 (1973).
135. Hooper v. Bernallilo Cnty. Assessor, 472 U.S. 612, 622-24 (1985).
136. See, e.g., Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113.
137. Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa., 505 U.S. at 887-98.
138. see also Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385, 392-93 (1969).
139. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967).
140. see Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 270-76 (2003).
141. Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 271 (1978).
142. see also Parents Involved in Cmty. Schs. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007) (invalidating voluntarily adopted public school student assignment plans that relied on race to promote integration).
143. See, e.g., Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634, 646 (1973).
144. Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 376-77(1971).
145. In United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 539-46 (1996), which invalidated an admissions policy that categorically excluded women from attendance at a state military college, the Court emphasized the further requirement that gender-based discriminations require an "exceedingly persuasive justification." a.
146. See, e.g., Clark v. Jeter, 486 U.S. 456, 465 (1988).
147. Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762, 766-76 (1977).
148. See Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 443 (1972).
149. See Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 635-36 (1996).
150. See, e.g., Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) (affirming a lower court decision that held a state districting statute unconstitutional on its face).
151. Lucas v. Forty-Fourth Gen. Assembly, 377 U.S. 713, 734-35 (1964).
152. Wesbeny v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 7 (1964).
153. See, e.g., Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996).
154. Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 920-28 (1995).
155. see also Kramer v. Union Sch. Dist., 395 U.S. 621, 628-29 (1969) (holding that a statute limiting voting in school district elections mostly to parents of school children and to those who owned or leased real property in the district or were married to someone who did could not survive the "exacting judicial scrutiny" applicable to "statutes distributing the franchise").
156. See, e.g., Memorial Hosp. v. Maricopa Cnty., 415 U.S. 250 (1974) (involving emergency medical care).
157. Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 360 (1972) (involving voting rights).
158. See Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 374 (2001).
159. Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 67, 91-92 (2000).
160. Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd. v. Coll. Sav. Bank, 527 U.S. 627, 637-48 (1999).
161. See L.A. Police Dep't v. United Reporting Publ'g Corp., 528 U.S. 32, 37-41 (1999).
162. United States v. Nat'l Treasury Emps. Union, 513 U.S. 454, 477-79 (1995).
163. Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 502-07 (1985).
164. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 447 (1985).
165. See Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24 (1973) (defining constitutionally unprotected obscenity).
166. See generally Monaghan, Overbreadth, supra note 46, at 3 (distinguishing the form of overbreadth analysis concerned with regulatory precision from a form identified with special standing rules).
167. See, e.g., Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001) (upholding a distinction between American citizen mothers and American citizen fathers of illegitimate children bom abroad).
168. Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977) (upholding the exclusion of women prison guards from duty in "contact positions" in all-male prisons).
169. The Court had found equal protection violations on this basis in cases involving colleges and graduate schools in McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950).
170. Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950).
171. and Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337 (1938).
172. See Charles L. Black, Jr., The Lawfulness of the Segregation Decisions, 69 YALE L.J. 421, 426 (1960) ("[C]olored schools have been so disgracefully inferior to white schools that only ignorance can excuse those who have remained acquiescent members of a community that lived the Molochian child-destroying lie that put them forward as 'equal.'").
173. See generally Amanda Frost, The Limits of Advocacy, 59 Duke L.J. 449, 452 (2009) (maintaining that "judicial issue creation. .. is an essential means of protecting the judiciary's role in the constitutional structure").
174. On the significance of doctrinal tests and the "extraordinary adjudication" in which the Supreme Court initially formulates them, see RICHARD H. FALLON, JR., IMPLEMENTING THE CONSTITUTION, 45-101 (2001).
175. See, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
176. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996).
177. Hooper v. Bemallilo Cnty. Assessor, 472 U.S. 612 (1985).
178. U.S. Dep't. of Agric. v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528 (1973).
179. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972).
180. Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971).
181. See, e.g., Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 504-05 (1985) (rejecting a facial challenge under the First Amendment overbreadth doctrine only after identifying specifically how the challenged statute could be severed to accord with constitutional requirements).
182. See generally Joseph Tussman & Jacobus tenBroek, The Equal Protection of the Laws, 37 CALIF. L. REV. 341 (1949) (discussing overinclusiveness as a basis for statutory invalidation under the Equal Protection Clause and rational basis review).
183. See, e.g., Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 501-02 (1985).
184. See Richard H. Fallon, Jr., The Supreme Court, 1996 Term-Foreword: Implementing the Constitution, 111 HARV. L. REV. 54, 56 (1997).
185. Even Cass Sunstein, who argues strongly for judicial " minimalism" as the presumptively correct approach, recognizes that "the choice between minimalism and the alternatives depends on an array of contextual considerations, and it would be extravagant to say that minimalism is always better." CASS R. SUNSTEIN, ONE CASE AT A TIME: JUDICIAL MINIMALISM ON THE SUPREME COURT 38 (1999).
186. See Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
187. See, e.g., Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976).
188. See, e.g., R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 386-87 (1992).
189. Cf. David H. Gans, Strategic Facial Challenges, 85 B.U. L. REV. 1333, 1333-34, 1350 (2005) (arguing that Supreme Court decisions to hold particular statutes invalid on their faces reflect "strategic" calculations, involving the statutes' propensity to chill constitutionally protected speech, their reliance on race- or gender-based stereotypes, or their tendency to invite invidiously discriminatory law enforcement).
190. See Gonzalez v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 167-68 (2007).
191. See generally David l. Faigman, Defining Empirical Frames of Reference in Constitutional Cases: Unraveling the As-Applied Versus Facial Distinction in Constitutional Law, 36 HASTINGS CONST. L.Q. 631 (2009) (linking the decision whether to consider and uphold facial challenges to a broader issue involving the "frames of reference" within which the Court defines constitutional rights).
192. See Gonzales v. O Centre Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418, 424 & n.1 (2006).
193. See, e.g., Sabri v. United States, 541 U.S. 600 (2004).
194. The Court also rejected a facial challenge based on a statute's purported lack of congruence and proportionality in Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004).
195. See Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 615 (1973).
196. New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 772 (1982).
197. See Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 884 (1997) ("In considering a facial challenge, this Court may impose a limiting construction on a statute only if it is 'readily susceptible' to such a construction.")
198. quoting Virginia v. Am. Bookseller's Ass'n., Inc., 484 U.S. 383, 397 (1988).
199. see also Bd. of Airport Comm'rs v. Jews for Jesus, 482 U.S. 569, 575 (1987) (invalidating a resolution as overbroad on its face in the absence of an "apparent saving construction").
200. Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360, 378 (1964) (finding facial invalidation appropriate where a challenged loyalty oath was "open to. .. an indefinite number" of interpretations).
201. see also Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 883 (severing the term "or indecent" from a statutory prohibition against "obscene or indecent" communications).
202. United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 182-83 (1983) (invalidating a ban against expressive displays on Supreme Court grounds as applied to sidewalks but not otherwise).
203. See, e.g., Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of N. New Eng., 546 U.S. 320, 331 (2006).
204. See HART & WECHSLER'S 5TH EDITION, supra note 45, at 183-84 (reciting varying statements of the applicable standard).
205. In Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 130 S. CL 3138, 3161-62 (2010), the Court found an invalid statutory provision separable where the remaining provisions were capable of operating independently "and nothing in the statute's text or historical context makes it 'evident' that Congress, faced with the limitations imposed by the Constitution, would have preferred no [Public Company Accounting Oversight] Board to a Board whose members are removable at will."
206. See Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 884-85 (1997) ("This Court 'will not rewrite a. .. law to conform it to constitutional requirements.'")
207. quoting Virginia v. Am. Bookseller's Ass'n., Inc., 484 U.S. 383, 397 (1988).
208. United States v. Nat'l Treasury Emps. Union, 513 U.S. 454, 479-80 (1985) (citing "[o]ur obligation to avoid judicial legislation" as a ground for declining to adopt a saving construction).
209. Aptheker v. Sec'y of State, 378 U.S. 500, 515-16 (1964) (declining to perform a "substantial rewriting" of a statute).
210. quoting Virginia v. Am. Booksellers Ass'n., Inc., 484 U.S. 383, 397 (1988).
211. For a relatively recent case apparently testing the outer limits of permissible judicial action to save an otherwise unconstitutional statute, see United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), in which the Court, by 5-4, cured an identified constitutional defect in statutorily mandated sentences under the federal Sentencing Guidelines by rendering the Guidelines "effectively advisory."
212. See also Stalling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896, 2939 (2010) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) (protesting that the majority's "paring down" of a statute to save it from unconstitutional vagueness was "clearly beyond judicial power").
213. On the connection between facial challenges and ripeness doctrine, see, for example, Monaghan, Overbreadth, supra note 46, at 35.
214. See, e.g., United States v. Stevens, 130 S. Ct. 1577, 1587 (2010).
215. (quoting United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 293 (2008) ("[T]he first step in overbreadth analysis is to construe the challenged statute; it is impossible to determine whether a statute reaches too far without first knowing what the statute covers.")).
216. Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 504 (1985) (recognizing that the propriety of facial invalidation depended on a prior question of statutory construction).
217. Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 618 n.16 (1973) ("[A] federal court must determine what a state statute means before it can judge its facial constitutionality.").
218. See, e.g., Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 451-52 (2008) (explaining that "[ejection regulations that impose a severe burden on associational rights are subject to strict scrutiny" whereas "[i]f a statute imposes only modest burdens. . . then 'the State's important regulatory interests are generally sufficient to justify reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions'")
219. quoting Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 788 (1983).
220. quoting United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 22 (1960).
221. See, e.g., United Pub. Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 87-91 (1947) (holding that plaintiffs asserting only vague and general plans to violate a statute alleged to abridge their First Amendment rights had failed to establish a justiciable case or controversy).
222. See, e.g., New Energy Co. of Ind. v. Limbach, 486 U.S. 269, 274 (1988) ("[S]tate statutes that clearly discriminate against interstate commerce are routinely struck down.").
223. Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148 (1967).
224. See Monaghan, Overbreadth, supra note 46, at 28.
225. Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 501 (1985).
226. quoting United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 21 (1960).
227. quoting Liverpool, N.Y. & Phila. S.S. Co. v. Comm'rs of Emigration, 113 U.S. 33, 39 (1885)).
228. See Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 450 (2008) ("Facial challenges. . . run contrary to the fundamental principle of judicial restraint that courts should neither anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it nor formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied.") (internal quotation marks omitted).
229. See James Bradley Thayer, The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine of Constitutional Law, 7 HARV. L. REV. 129, 135 (1893).
230. See Edward Hartnett, Modest Hope for a Modest Roberts Court: Deference, Facial Challenges, and the Comparative Competence of Courts, 59 SMU L. REV. 1735, 1745-48, 1751-52 (2006).
231. Richard A. Posner, The Supreme Court, 1994 Term-Foreword: A Political Court, 119 HARV. L. REV. 31, 53-54 (2005).
232. For a rare defense of a generally Thayerian approach to judicial review, see ADRIAN VERMEULE, JUDGING UNDER UNCERTAINTY: AN INSTITUTIONAL THEORY OF LEGAL INTERPRETATION (2006).
233. See, e.g., Sabri v. United States, 541 U.S. 600, 609 (2004).
234. See, e.g., Board, of Airport Comm'rs v. Jews for Jesus, 482 U.S. 569, 573 (1987). (invalidating a ban on all "First Amendment activities" at Los Angeles International Airport).
235. Miami Herald v. Tomillo, 418 U.S. 241, 259 (1974) (invalidating a Florida statute that required newspapers to print replies by candidates whose characters or records they attacked).
236. The Supreme Court faced partly analogous problems of classification under versions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1254 and 1257 that, prior to their amendment in 1988, see Supreme Court Case Selections Act of June 27, 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-352, 102 Stat. 662 (1988),.
237. vested it with mandatory appellate jurisdiction over certain cases in which the "validity" of "a statute" was "drawn in question." For discussion of the Court's efforts to resolve those problems, see PAUL M. BATOR ET AL., HART & WECHSLER'S THE FEDERAL COURTS AND THE FEDERAL SYSTEM 711-24 (3d ed. 1988).
238. Although written rules and policies that are adopted by nonelected bodies-such as administrative agencies and state universities-are as amenable to facial challenges as the enactments of Congress and state legislatures, we excluded challenges to unwritten policies, such as the policy of the California Department of Corrections of racially segregating new inmates in Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499 (2005).
239. We also excluded the challenge in Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000), to a procedure for review of lawyers' motions for leave to withdraw from indigents' cases that was established by judicial opinion.
240. But we included the challenge to a highway sobriety checkpoint "program" in Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990), because it was administered pursuant to written guidelines to which the Court called attention.
241. See, e.g., Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Dep't of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 265, 268-69 (1990).
242. For example, in both Graham v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2011 (2010).
243. and Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), convicted criminals maintained that their sentences for crimes committed while they were juveniles-life in prison without parole in Graham, death in Roper- constituted cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth Amendment. In both cases, state statutes authorized, but did not flatly require, the sentences. The cases, accordingly, could be construed either as presenting as-applied challenges to the state statutory schemes insofar as they authorized the sentences in issue or as involving as-applied attacks on the sentence alone. In the cases that could plausibly have been categorized as either challenging a statute, on the one hand, or the discretionary actions of government officials, on the other hand, my research assistants and I tried to track the Court's approach and to treat challenges as addressed to the background statutes if, but only if, the Court so framed its analysis. Because the Court in Graham and Roper specifically referred not only to relevant state statutes, but also to the statutes in other states that would have permitted similar sentences, we coded the cases as involving as-applied challenges to the statutes.
244. We did the same with Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (1990), which appeared to treat a constitutional objection to the admission of evidence as an as-applied challenge to Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
245. By contrast, in McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 850 (2005), in which officials erected Ten Commandments displays before the enactment of an authorizing resolution and subsequently altered those displays in response to a judicial ruling, we treated the challenge as addressed to officials' conduct rather than a law, ordinance, or resolution.
246. We made similar judgments in University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC, 493 U.S. 182 (1990), which rejected a First Amendment-based challenge to a subpoena issued in connection with a statutorily authorized EEOC investigation.
247. and California v. FERC, 495 U.S. 490 (1990), which held an order by the California Water Resources Control Board to be preempted by federal law.
248. We similarly coded Grand Rapids School District v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373 (1985).
249. and Aguilar v. Felton, 473 U.S. 402, 414 (1985), in which the Court characterized its holding as finding that "program[s]" providing assistance to private schools violated the Establishment Clause, due to their effects in promoting religion or entangling the government with religious institutions, as involving facial invalidations, even though in both cases a relatively small fraction of the assistance went to nonreligious schools. If the defendants in Ball and Aguilar had continued to make distributions under their programs to nonreligious schools only, they might plausibly have argued that the Court's rationale showed those programs to be unconstitutional only as applied to religious schools, any broader language in the Court's opinion notwithstanding. Another exemplification of the same classificatoiy problem comes from cases that appear to hold statutes invalid because not "congruent and proportional" to an identified pattern of constitutional violations under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In a future case brought under such a statute, but by a plaintiff who had herself pleaded that she was the victim of an actual constitutional violation, it is at least imaginable that the Court would say,.
250. as it did in United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 158 (2006), that "no one doubts" Congress's power to abrogate states' immunity for violations of constitutional rights.
251. Our reasoning was that dispositions such as these leave the Court with no occasion to determine whether to entertain, disprefer, or uphold a facial challenge. We included in this category cases in which the votes of Justices finding a lack of justiciability were necessary to make a majority for the Court's decision, even if some of the Justices in the majority would have decided the case on the merits. See, e.g., Salazar v. Buono, 130 S. Ct. 1803 (2010).
252. But we did not include in this category-which is to say that we treated as having resolved a facial challenge on the merits-City of Erie v. Pap's A.M., 529 U.S. 277, 282-83 (2000).
253. E.g., McDonald v. Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3026 (2010).
254. Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005).
255. Garner v. Jones, 529 U.S. 244 (2000).
256. E.g., Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 16, 25-26 (2005).
257. Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848, 857-58 (2000).
258. See, e.g., United States v. Sperry Corp., 493 U.S. 52, 59, 64-65 (1989) (rejecting separate facial challenges under the Constitution's just compensation, due process, and equal protection guarantees).
259. For example, we list FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990), as a case in which the Court upheld a facial challenge (under the Free Speech Clause),.
260. For an example, see Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417, 423 (1990).
261. The Supreme Court, 2009 Term-The Statistics, 124 HARV. L. REV. 411 (2010).
262. Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 130 S. Ct. 876, 888 (2010).
263. United States v. Stevens, 130 S. Ct. 1577, 1582 (2010).
264. Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd., 130 S. Ct. 3138, 3147-49, 3161 (2010).
265. United States v. Comstock, 130 S. Ct. 1949, 1954 (2010).
266. Christian Legal Soc'y v. Martinez, 130 S. Ct. 2971, 2978 (2010).
267. Florida v. Powell, 130 S. Ct. 1195, 1199-1200 (2010).
268. Of these, two required significant coding judgments. Florida v. Powell presented the question whether a police officer had given an adequate Miranda warning by reading from "the standard Tampa Police Department Consent and Release Form 310."
269. Doe v. Reed, 130 S. Ct. 2811, 2815-17 (2010).
270. Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 130 S. Ct. 2705, 2712 (2010).
271. Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 1324, 1339-41 (2010).
272. Graham v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2011, 2017-18, 2022-23 (2010).
273. Citizens United, 130 S. Ct. at 917.
274. Free Enter. Fund, 130 S. Ct. at 3147-48, 3164 (2010).
275. The Supreme Court, 2004 Term-The Statistics, 119 HARV. L. REV. 415, 420 (2005).
276. Bell v. Cone, 543 U.S. 447, 447-8, 459 (2005).
277. Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460, 493 (2005).
278. Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 713-14.
279. Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 220-21 (2005).
280. Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469, 484 (2005).
281. Johanns v. Livestock Mktg. Ass'n, 544 U.S. 550, 567 (2005).
282. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 564, 568 (2005).
283. Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 8-9 (2005).
284. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 226-27, 229 n.1 (2005).
285. Clingman v. Beaver, 544 U.S. 581, 585 (2005).
286. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. Mich. Pub. Service Comm'n 545 U.S. 429, 431-34 (2005).
287. The Supreme Court, 1999 Term-The Statistics, 114 HARV. L. REV. 390 (2000).
288. L.A. Police Dep't v. United Reporting Publ'g Corp., 528 U.S. 32, 34 (1999).
289. Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 67 (2000).
290. Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141, 143 (2000).
291. Nixon v. Shrink Mo. Gov't PAC, 528 U.S. 377, 383 (2000).
292. Hunt-Wesson, Inc. v. Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal., 528 U.S. 458, 463 (2000).
293. Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495, 498-99 (2000).
294. United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89, 94 (2000).
295. City of Erie v. Pap's A. M. 529 U.S. 277, 282-83 (2000).
296. United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 601-02 (2000).
297. Vt. Agency of Natural Res. v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 771-78 (2000).
298. United States v. Playboy Entm't Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 806-07 (2000).
299. Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327, 331 (2000).
300. Crosby v. Nat'l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 366 (2000).
301. Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 432 (2000).
302. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 468-69 (2000).
303. Cal. Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567, 569 (2000).
304. Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 707-08 (2000).
305. Sternberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 921-22 (2000).
306. Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 294 (2000).
307. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Wis. System v. Southworth, 529 U.S. 217, 221 (2000).
308. Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Shanklin, 529 U.S. 344, 347 (2000).
309. Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753, 759-60 (2000).
310. Geier v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861, 864-65 (2000).
311. Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 643-t4 (2000).
312. Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U.S. 793, 801 (2000).
313. Carmell v. Texas, 529 U.S. 513, 516 (2000).
314. We also included in this category Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000).
315. The Supreme Court, 1994 Term-The Statistics, 109 HARV. L. REV. 340 (1995).
316. United States v. X-citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64, 66-67, 78-79 (1994).
317. Harris v. Alabama, 513 U.S. 504, 511, 515 (1995).
318. Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211, 228 (1995).
319. Mclntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334, 339, 356 (1995).
320. Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., 514 U.S. 476, 490-91 (1995).
321. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 551-52 (1995).
322. U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 783 (1995).
323. Fla. Bar v. Went for It, Inc., 515 U.S. 618, 621, 635 (1995).
324. Veronia Sch. Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 642, 651-52 (1995).
325. Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 920-27 (1995).
326. Reich v. Collins, 513 U.S. 106, 109 (1994).
327. United States v. Nat'l Treasury Emps. Union, 513 U.S. 454, 477-79 (1995).
328. Okla. Tax Comm'n v. Jefferson Lines, Inc., 514 U.S. 175, 178 (1995).
329. Cal. Dep't of Corrections v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499, 504 (1995).
330. Reynoldsville Casket Co. v. Hyde, 514 U.S. 749, 751-52, 759 (1995).
331. Hurley v. Irish-American, Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Bos., Inc., 515 U.S. 557, 579 (1995).
332. Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 822-23, 827-28 (1995).
333. The Supreme Court, 1989 Term-The Statistics, 104 HARV. L. REV. 359 (1990).
334. United States v. Sperry Corp., 493 U.S. 52, 54 (1989).
335. FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 220, 223 (1990).
336. Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Alcan Aluminium Ltd., 493 U.S. 331, 333-34 (1990).
337. Preseault v. ICC, 494 U.S. 1, 4-5, 17 (1990).
338. Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 213-18 (1990).
339. Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 372 (1990).
340. McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433, 435 (1990).
341. U.S. Dep't. of Labor v. Triplett, 494 U.S. 715, 717 (1990).
342. United States v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U.S. 385, 387-88 (1990).
343. North Dakota v. United States, 495 U.S. 423, 426 (1990).
344. Westside Cmty. Bd. of Educ. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 231 (1990).
345. Perpich v. Dep't of Defense, 496 U.S. 334, 336-37 (1990).
346. Mich. Dep't of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 447 (1990).
347. Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417, 422-23 (1990).
348. Ohio v. Akron Center for Reprod. Health, 497 U.S. 502, 506-07 (1990).
349. Metro Broad., Inc. v. FCC, 497 U.S. 547, 552 (1990).
350. and Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 840 (1990) (ruling only on a facial challenge, while remanding for a decision on an as-applied challenge).
351. Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. Bd. of Equalization of Cal., 493 U.S. 378, 380 (1990).
352. FTC v. Super. Ct. Trial Lawyers Ass'n, 493 U.S. 411, 414 (1990).
353. Blystone v. Pennsylvania, 494 U.S. 299, 301, 305-06 (1990).
354. Butterworth v. Smith, 494 U.S. 624, 626 (1990).
355. Adams Fruit Co. v. Barrett, 494 U.S. 638, 640 (1990).
356. Emp't Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 874 (1990).
357. United Steelworkers of Am. v. Rawson, 495 U.S. 362, 364-72, 376 (1990).
358. English v. General Elec. Co., 496 U.S. 72, 74 (1990).
359. Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Comm'n of 111., 496 U.S. 91, 93-94, 97-98 (1990).
360. Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 3 (1990).
361. Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 39 (1990).
362. United States v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720, 722-23 (1990).
363. Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342, 343-4 (1990).
364. Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Dep't of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 265, 268-69 (1990).
365. Austin v. Mich. Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652, 654-55 (1990).
366. Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 106-08 (1990).
367. Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639, 642-44, 647-53, 655 (1990).
368. Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 766 (1990).
369. and United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310, 312 (1990).
370. The Supreme Court, 1984 Term-The Statistics, 99 HARV. L. REV. 322 (1985).
371. Lawrence Cnty. v. Lead-Deadwood Sch. Dist., 469 U.S. 256, 259-60 (1985).
372. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe. Ry. Co., 470 U.S. 451, 478 (1985).
373. Fed. Elections Comm'n v. Nat'l Conservative PAC, 470 U.S. 480, 482-84 (1985).
374. United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84, 91, 103 (1985).
375. Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222, 231-33 (1985).
376. Ponte v. Real, 471 U.S. 491, 492-93 (1985).
377. Hillsborough Cnty. v. Automated Med. Labs, 471 U.S. 707, 710-12 (1985).
378. Williams v. Vermont, 472 U.S. 14, 16, 27 (1985).
379. Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 56-61 (1985).
380. Ne. Bancorp v. Bd. of Governors, Fed. Reserve Sys., 472 U.S. 159, 174-78 (1985).
381. Hooper v. Bernalillo Cnty. Assessor, 472 U.S. 612, 615, 617, 622 (1985).
382. Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc., 472 U.S. 703, 708-10 (1985).
383. Walters v. Nat. Ass'n. of Radiation Survivors, 473 U.S. 305, 307-08 (1985).
384. Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co., 473 U.S. 568, 593-94 (1985).
385. Sup. Ct. of N.H. v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274, 288 (1985).
386. Cornelius v. NAACP (NAACP III), 473 U.S. 788, 795-97 (1985).
387. Grand Rapids Sch. Dist. v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373, 380-81, 397-98 (1985).
388. Aguilar v. Felton, 473 U.S. 402, 407-08, 414 (1985).
389. Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Auth., 469 U.S. 528, 533-36 (1985).
390. Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Ward, 470 U.S. 869, 872 (1985).
391. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 5, 11-12 (1985).
392. Tony & Susan Alamo Found, v. Sec'y of Labor, 471 U.S. 290, 294, 303 (1985).
393. Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 470 (1985).
394. McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479, 481-82, 485 (1985).
395. Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 502-07 (1985).
396. United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675, 679 (1985).
397. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 447-50(1985).
398. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 536 (1985).
399. Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 604-06, 610-11 (1985).
400. Zaunderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626, 635 (1985).
401. Baldwin v. Alabama, 472 U.S. 372, 382-86 & n.8 (1985).
402. Lawrence Cnty. v. Lead-Deadwood Sch. Dist., 469 U.S. 256, 270 (1985).
403. FEC v. Nat'l Conservative PAC, 470 U.S. 480, 482-84 (1985).
404. Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222, 231-33 (1985).
405. Zaunderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626, 642, 647-9 (1985).
406. Williams v. Vermont, 472 U.S. 14, 16, 27 (1985).
407. Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 56-61 (1985).
408. Metro. Life Ins., 470 U.S. at 872.