Proof breadth
How much invalidity must the challenger demonstrate? One concrete application, every legally relevant application, or substantial overbreadth?
01Doctrine
Classify the challenge by its actual reach.
The best modern cases treat facial and as-applied as coordinates of proof and remedy—not freestanding constitutional causes of action.
Two axes, three separate questions.
Remedial breadth
Which enforcement may stop? Only the proven application, a severable portion, or the full defined universe?
Party breadth
Who receives relief? Named plaintiffs, a certified class, or nonparties? Trump v. CASA makes this an independent inquiry.
Five moves from complaint to judgment.
Pin the application
Identify the government act, the person against whom it operates, the statutory provision, and the material facts.
Define the universe
Ask what the challenged law actually authorizes. Under Patel, independent legal justifications do not become statutory applications.
Choose the merits rule
Start with the general Salerno baseline, then determine whether overbreadth, vagueness, or another doctrine-specific rule controls.
Map proof to breadth
Decide whether the record proves one unconstitutional application or enough invalidity across the complete application set.
Tailor relief
Separate what is unconstitutional from which enforcement may stop and which parties may be protected.
Start general. Then test for an exception.
Salerno and legitimate sweep
A facial attack ordinarily fails if a legally relevant constitutional application remains. Washington State Grange cautions against speculation and premature statutory interpretation.
Find baseline casesSubstantial overbreadth
Protected-speech applications must be substantial relative to the law’s legitimate sweep. Moody requires the full application inventory before comparison.
Find speech casesPartial before total
Ayotte prefers enjoining unconstitutional applications or severing defective portions when a court can do so without rewriting the law.
Explore remediesBucklew teaches that the substantive constitutional rule ordinarily stays the same. Narrowing the claim changes the facts, the quantum of invalidity to prove, and the permissible relief.