Also known as: facial invalidity · facially unconstitutional · void on its face · invalid on its face
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A statute or regulation that violates the Constitution in all or substantially all of its applications. The defect arises when the measure reaches a substantial amount of protected conduct relative to its plainly legitimate sweep, rendering it unenforceable against anyone.
Felicia Fuentes stood on a public sidewalk holding a sign criticizing city policy. Police cited her under a municipal rule banning all signs near government buildings. She sued, arguing the rule reached far more protected expression than needed to address any traffic or safety concerns. The court agreed the rule was facially invalid and enjoined its enforcement against everyone.
Frank Fisher burned a cross on his own lawn during a private dispute. Officers arrested him under a city ordinance that punished only symbols arousing anger on the basis of race or religion. Fisher moved to dismiss, showing the ordinance singled out disfavored messages even within the fighting-words category. The court held the ordinance facially invalid and dismissed the charge.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Fernando Farrell operated a website allowing adults to post and view material on political topics. Federal prosecutors charged him under a statute criminalizing transmission of any indecent content to minors without effective age screening. Farrell demonstrated that the statute suppressed vast amounts of adult-to-adult speech. The court declared the statute facially invalid.
Francesca Fowler lived with her two grandsons in a single-family home. City inspectors cited her under an ordinance defining family to exclude grandchildren from the same household. Fowler showed the rule swept in countless ordinary living arrangements without advancing any zoning goal. The court found the ordinance facially invalid.
Forrest Falconer, a physician, performed a medically necessary procedure after viability. State prosecutors charged him under a statute banning nearly all abortions after the first trimester. Falconer proved the statute lacked any exception for maternal health. The court held the statute facially invalid and dismissed the prosecution.
Fusion Power, a corporation, sought to air an advertisement criticizing a candidate within sixty days of an election. Regulators threatened enforcement under a statute banning such corporate speech. Fusion Power showed the statute reached protected issue advocacy far beyond any anti-corruption interest. The court declared the provision facially invalid.
The challenger must show that the regulation prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech when judged against its plainly legitimate sweep. The burden rests on the challenger. If that showing fails, the regulation may still be enforced against unprotected conduct.
Supporting sources
No. A law is facially invalid only when the protected speech it reaches is substantial relative to its legitimate applications. Isolated hypothetical applications to protected speech do not suffice.
Supporting sources
No. Once a court finds substantial overbreadth, the law may not be enforced against anyone, even persons engaged in unprotected activity, unless the court supplies a limiting construction that removes the constitutional threat.
Supporting sources
…entirely. Pp. 163-166. 7. Measured against these standards, the Texas abortion laws are unconstitutional. Pp. 164-166. 8. The facial invalidity of the Texas abortion laws does not require that all state abortion laws be invalidated. Pp. 166-167. Majority opinion Opinion of Blackmun, J. We forthwith acknowledge our…