The opinions that organize the field.

The canonical general formulation: a facial challenger must show no set of circumstances in which the Act would be valid.

First Amendment overbreadth is an exception: substantial protected-speech applications, judged against the law’s plainly legitimate sweep, can suspend all enforcement.

When some applications are unconstitutional, narrower declaratory or injunctive relief is ordinarily preferred to total invalidation.

Facial challenges are disfavored; speculation and hypothetical applications cannot displace a law with a plainly legitimate sweep.

The distinction is not a pleading switch with automatic effect; it chiefly concerns how much invalidity must be shown and how broad the remedy may be.

The label is not what matters. A claim is facial to the extent the theory and requested injunction reach beyond the plaintiffs’ circumstances.

Define applications by what the challenged law actually authorizes—not searches independently justified by warrants, consent, or exigency.

Facial and as-applied labels do not change the substantive rule; they change how much invalidity must be shown and the breadth of relief.

Map the law’s full set of applications, decide which are constitutional, then compare the two sets under the substantial-overbreadth standard.

A court evaluating a facial attack must test the circumstances in which the law is most likely constitutional, not manufacture doubtful hypotheticals.

A broad statutory challenge to an agency rule fails when at least some regulated products lawfully fall within the governing statute.

Universal injunctions likely exceed federal equitable authority; relief cannot be broader than needed to give complete relief to plaintiffs with standing.

Section 922(g)(3) was unconstitutional as applied to a regular marijuana user where the prosecution lacked individualized proof of danger or incapacity.

Hawaii’s express-permission rule was invalid in its application to licensed carry on private property open to the public.