When Laws Go to Court: Facial vs. As-Applied Challenges Explained

Last updated 5 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

When a law is passed, it’s not always the final word. The U.S. Constitution provides ways for citizens to challenge laws they believe are unconstitutional. Two main paths exist: “facial challenges” and “as-applied challenges.” Each has different requirements and outcomes.

What’s the Difference?

Facial Challenges: The Law Itself is Bad

A facial challenge claims the law is unconstitutional on its face – meaning the very text of the law violates the Constitution in every possible application. The plaintiff argues the legislation is inherently flawed and should be entirely void.

If successful, a court will declare the statute invalid, striking it down completely. The law can’t be enforced against anyone under any circumstances.

As-Applied Challenges: The Law is Bad in This Specific Case

An as-applied challenge argues that while a law might be generally constitutional, its application to the plaintiff in their specific situation is unconstitutional. The focus isn’t on the law itself, but on how it affects a real-world scenario.

For example, a law requiring all employees to work on Saturdays might seem neutral. However, if it disproportionately burdens employees whose religious beliefs require Saturday Sabbath observance, it could be challenged as unconstitutional as applied to them.

If an as-applied challenge succeeds, a court will typically narrow the circumstances in which the statute can be constitutionally applied – preventing its use against the plaintiff or similar situations, but not striking down the entire law.

Key Differences at a Glance

This table provides a side-by-side comparison of the fundamental distinctions between these two legal concepts:

Scope: Entire Law vs. Specific Use

Facial challenges seek to invalidate a statute entirely because every application is claimed to be unconstitutional. The argument is that the law is fundamentally flawed at its core.

As-applied challenges target only a particular application of a statute. They allege that in this specific instance of enforcement against the plaintiff, the law operates unconstitutionally. The law itself might be perfectly acceptable in other contexts.

Timing: When Can These Challenges Happen?

Facial challenges can often be brought soon after a statute’s passage, sometimes even before it’s enforced against anyone specifically. This makes them “prospective” or forward-looking, aiming to prevent future constitutional violations.

As-applied challenges typically can only be brought once the law has been enforced or there is a credible threat of enforcement against a specific party. This makes them “retrospective” or backward-looking, seeking to address a constitutional violation that has already occurred or is about to occur in a concrete situation.

The Goal: Striking Down vs. Limiting Application

A successful facial challenge results in the court declaring the statute (or the challenged provision) facially invalid. This effectively strikes the law down entirely, rendering it null and void. The law can no longer be enforced against anyone.

A successful as-applied challenge typically results in a court narrowing the circumstances in which the statute may constitutionally be applied. The law remains on the books and can be enforced in other applications that are deemed constitutional.

Legal Standards: What Must Be Proven?

Challenging a law is never easy. Each type of challenge comes with specific legal standards that must be met.

Facial Challenges: A High Bar

The most common and demanding standard was established in United States v. Salerno (1987). According to this standard, to succeed in a facial attack, “the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.” This means the law must be unconstitutional in all its conceivable applications – an exceptionally high bar.

Facial challenges are generally “disfavored” by courts for several reasons:

• They ask courts to invalidate an entire law passed by democratically elected representatives
• They often rest on speculation about how a law might be applied in hypothetical scenarios
• They run contrary to judicial restraint principles
• They can “short circuit the democratic process” by preventing laws from being implemented

The challenger in a facial attack bears a heavy evidentiary burden. They must demonstrate the law’s pervasive unconstitutionality. In First Amendment cases, which have slightly different standards, the challenger must lay out “a law’s full set of applications, evaluate which are constitutional and which are not, and compare the one to the other.” A law can then be facially invalidated “only if the law’s unconstitutional applications substantially outweigh its constitutional ones.”

A failure to meet this extensive burden, such as not thoroughly analyzing the “full range” of activities potentially covered by the law, can doom a facial challenge. This was a key issue in the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, where cases were sent back to lower courts because such a comprehensive analysis was lacking.

As-Applied Challenges: Focusing on Facts

In an as-applied challenge, the plaintiff must prove that the application of the challenged statute is unconstitutional under their particular circumstances. The court’s inquiry is grounded in the specific facts of how the law directly impacts the individual bringing the suit.

The litigant must present evidence showing that the law, as applied to them, directly violates their constitutional rights and causes demonstrable harm. This burden is generally considered less difficult to meet than that of a facial challenge because it doesn’t require proving the law is always unconstitutional, only that it’s unconstitutional in this specific instance.

The fact-specific nature of as-applied challenges makes them more common and often more successful. Courts are generally more comfortable adjudicating claims based on specific evidence of harm in a concrete factual setting, rather than engaging in more abstract analysis. This explains why as-applied challenges are considered “less difficult to succeed” and are often favored by courts, including the contemporary Roberts Court.

What Happens When a Challenge Succeeds?

The result depends heavily on whether the challenge was facial or as-applied.

If a facial challenge succeeds, a court will declare the statute (or the challenged provision) “facially invalid.” This has the sweeping effect of striking it down entirely, making it unenforceable against anyone under any circumstances. It’s as if the law was never passed.

A successful as-applied challenge results in a more tailored remedy. The court will typically narrow the circumstances in which the statute may be applied, or prevent its application to the specific plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals, without striking down the entire law. The law itself remains valid for other applications that don’t present the same constitutional problems.

When the Lines Blur

Despite these distinctions, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that the line between facial and as-applied challenges is “not so well defined that it has some automatic effect or that it must always control the pleadings and disposition in every case” (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission). Legal scholars like Richard H. Fallon Jr. have argued that the terms are somewhat ambiguous and not always easily distinguishable.

This lack of a clear distinction can lead to confusion. Courts and commentators sometimes muddle the type of challenge with other related concepts, such as whether a suit is brought before the law is enforced or after, or with the specific type of remedy being sought.

For instance, a pre-enforcement challenge that seeks to invalidate a law only for a specific subset of its applications can be described as either a facial challenge to that subset or an as-applied challenge in anticipation of those applications.

This ambiguity carries significant practical consequences. It can affect litigation strategy, as litigants might frame a challenge one way, only for a court to interpret it differently. The Roberts Court appears to sometimes use the distinction to manage its docket, avoid setting broad precedents prematurely, or encourage the development of a more complete factual record.

Constitutional Foundations: Where These Challenges Come From

Constitutional challenges are rooted in specific protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

First Amendment Challenges

A significant number of both facial and as-applied challenges are based on the First Amendment, which prohibits Congress (and through the Fourteenth Amendment, the states) from making laws “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” or prohibiting free exercise of religion.

The Overbreadth Doctrine is crucial for First Amendment facial challenges. A law is deemed unconstitutionally “overbroad” if, in attempting to regulate unprotected activity, it also prohibits a substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech or conduct. Such a law can be struck down on its face, even if the particular speech of the person bringing the challenge could be constitutionally restricted by a more narrowly drawn law.

The Vagueness Doctrine allows laws to be challenged, often facially, if they are unconstitutionally vague. A law is considered vague if its prohibitions aren’t clearly defined, such that ordinary people cannot understand what conduct is prohibited. This lack of clarity violates due process because it fails to provide fair notice. Vague laws can also lead to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

The special treatment shown in First Amendment cases, particularly through the overbreadth doctrine, stems from the fundamental importance of free expression in a democratic society. Laws that are imprecise or overly broad risk deterring people from engaging in legitimate public discourse for fear of legal repercussions. This potential “chilling effect” can justify facial invalidation.

Due Process Challenges (Fifth & Fourteenth Amendments)

The Fifth Amendment (applying to the federal government) and the Fourteenth Amendment (applying to state governments) both guarantee that no person shall be deprived of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

Procedural Due Process challenges focus on the methods the government uses. They argue that the government has not followed fair procedures when enforcing a law or taking action that deprives an individual of life, liberty, or property.

Substantive Due Process challenges argue that the law itself is an unconstitutional infringement on fundamental rights, regardless of the procedures used to enforce it. This doctrine protects certain fundamental rights from government interference, even if those rights aren’t explicitly listed in the Constitution, provided they are “deeply rooted in U.S. history and tradition.”

The Vagueness Doctrine is also rooted in Due Process principles. A law that is so vague that individuals must guess at its meaning violates the first essential of due process: fair notice. For example, in Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, the Supreme Court struck down a vagrancy ordinance as facially void for vagueness because its ill-defined terms gave too much discretion to law enforcement and failed to inform citizens of what conduct was forbidden.

Due Process serves as a versatile constitutional tool because it scrutinizes both how a law is applied (procedural due process) and what a law dictates (substantive due process). This provides broad grounds for challenging governmental actions that are deemed unfair or that unjustly impinge upon individual liberties.

Equal Protection Challenges (Fourteenth Amendment)

The Fourteenth Amendment contains the Equal Protection Clause, which mandates that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” While this applies directly to states, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause to impose similar equal protection requirements on the federal government.

A law that facially discriminates—meaning its text explicitly creates classifications based on suspect criteria like race or national origin—will be subject to “strict scrutiny,” the most rigorous form of judicial review. Such laws are very rarely upheld.

A law that is facially neutral but has a discriminatory effect or purpose can also be challenged, typically as-applied. Proving that the government had a discriminatory intent or motive is often a key element.

Courts apply different levels of scrutiny to equal protection challenges depending on the classification:

• Strict Scrutiny: Applied to laws classifying by race, national origin, or alienage, or impinging upon fundamental rights. The government must prove the law is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest, using the least restrictive means. This is extremely difficult to meet.
• Intermediate Scrutiny: Typically applied to laws classifying by gender or illegitimacy. The government must prove the law is substantially related to an important government interest.
• Rational Basis Review: This most deferential standard applies to most other classifications. A law will be upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. The burden is on the challenger to prove there is no conceivable rational basis for the classification.

Landmark Supreme Court Cases

The Supreme Court defines and refines these doctrines through its decisions.

Foundational Precedents

Marbury v. Madison (1803): While not directly about facial versus as-applied challenges, this seminal case established the principle of judicial review. By affirming the Supreme Court’s power to interpret the Constitution and strike down conflicting laws, Marbury laid the essential groundwork for all constitutional challenges.

United States v. Salerno (1987): This pivotal case established the stringent “no set of circumstances” test for most facial challenges. This high standard underscores the judiciary’s reluctance to invalidate laws wholesale and reflects deference to the legislative branch.

The Roberts Court’s Approach

The Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts (since 2005) has consistently preferred as-applied litigation over broad facial challenges. The Court frequently rejects facial constitutional challenges while explicitly noting that narrower as-applied claims might succeed in specific factual contexts. This approach is justified by characterizing as-applied claims as “the basic building blocks of constitutional adjudication.”

This preference has been observed across various contexts and is sometimes used strategically. It can allow the Court to avoid overturning established precedent directly or to permit further factual development in lower courts before making broad constitutional rulings with wide-ranging implications.

Recent Key Decisions

Citizens United v. FEC (2010): In this prominent campaign finance case, the Supreme Court acknowledged the somewhat fluid nature of these categories, stating that “the distinction between facial and as-applied challenges is not so well defined that it has some automatic effect or that it must always control the pleadings and disposition in every case.”

Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England (2006): This abortion case signaled an important shift in the Court’s approach to remedies. While acknowledging a constitutional flaw in a New Hampshire parental notification law, the Court emphasized that wholesale invalidation was inappropriate. It stated that courts should generally “try to limit the solution to the problem,” and that “partial, rather than facial, invalidation is the required course” whenever possible.

Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party (2008): In this First Amendment case concerning a Washington ballot initiative, the Supreme Court rejected a facial challenge brought by political parties. Justice Thomas’s opinion reiterated that facial challenges are “disfavored for several reasons,” including that they often “rest on speculation,” raise the risk of “premature interpretation of statutes,” and can “threaten to short circuit the democratic process.”

The Latest Word: Moody v. NetChoice (2024)

In the consolidated cases of Moody v. NetChoice, LLC and NetChoice v. Paxton, decided on July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court addressed significant facial First Amendment challenges to state laws in Florida and Texas regulating how large social media platforms moderate content.

The Supreme Court vacated the judgments of the lower courts, holding that neither had conducted a proper analysis of the full scope of the laws’ potential applications, a prerequisite for adjudicating a facial challenge. Justice Kagan’s majority opinion reiterated the standard for a First Amendment facial challenge: a plaintiff must establish that “a substantial number of [the law’s] applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.”

Concurring opinions, such as Justice Barrett’s, suggested that as-applied challenges focusing on specific functions of social media platforms might be more appropriate. The decision reinforces the high evidentiary bar for facial challenges and may steer future litigants challenging broad tech regulations toward more targeted as-applied challenges.

Real-World Examples

These legal concepts have tangible impacts on laws affecting many aspects of life.

Online Speech and Social Media Regulation

The recent cases of Moody v. NetChoice, LLC and NetChoice v. Paxton provide a prime example. Trade associations representing social media platforms brought facial challenges against Florida and Texas laws regulating content moderation policies, arguing these violated the platforms’ First Amendment rights to editorial discretion. The Supreme Court remanded these cases, emphasizing that the lower courts hadn’t adequately analyzed the full range of the laws’ applications.

Earlier, in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997), a facial challenge based on the First Amendment’s overbreadth doctrine successfully struck down provisions of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. The Court found that criminalizing “indecent” and “patently offensive” online speech was overly broad and would unconstitutionally restrict protected speech between adults.

Election Laws and Voting Rights

Election laws are frequently contested through both types of challenges. Voter identification laws have been a common subject. In Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008), the Supreme Court rejected a facial challenge to Indiana’s voter ID law. However, the Court explicitly left open the possibility that future as-applied challenges could be brought by individual voters who could demonstrate that the law imposed an unconstitutional burden on their specific right to vote.

This case illustrates the Court’s preference for as-applied adjudication in this area, requiring concrete evidence of disenfranchisement rather than broad assertions of potential harm. This trend can make systemic reforms more difficult to achieve quickly, as litigants may need to bring multiple lawsuits based on specific instances of harm.

Criminal Justice

Fourth Amendment (Searches and Seizures): The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Challenges to search warrants often focus on a lack of probable cause or a failure to particularly describe the place to be searched. These are typically as-applied challenges, arguing that the warrant or search was unconstitutional in the specific circumstances.

While most Fourth Amendment litigation involves specific instances, facial challenges can occur. In City of Los Angeles v. Patel (2015), the Supreme Court found a city ordinance facially unconstitutional. The ordinance required hotel operators to make guest registries available to police on demand without providing any opportunity for pre-compliance judicial review.

Fifth Amendment (Vagueness): Laws defining criminal offenses can be challenged as facially void if they are too vague. A law is unconstitutionally vague if it fails to provide ordinary people with fair notice of prohibited conduct or encourages arbitrary enforcement.

In Coates v. City of Cincinnati (1971), an ordinance making it illegal for “three or more persons to assemble on a sidewalk and conduct themselves in a manner annoying to passers-by” was found facially void for vagueness. The term “annoying” was deemed too subjective.

Similarly, in Kolender v. Lawson (1983), a law requiring persons stopped by police to provide “credible and reliable” identification was struck down as facially vague because it gave too much discretion to officers to determine what constituted “credible and reliable” identification.

Economic Regulations and Business

Challenges to economic regulations frequently invoke the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses. The typical standard of review is the highly deferential rational basis test, meaning the law will be upheld if it is rationally related to any legitimate state interest.

A Nebraska Supreme Court case provides an example of a facial challenge to an economic regulation: a business owner challenged a state statute requiring a showing of “public convenience and necessity” to obtain a certificate to operate non-emergency medical transportation services. The court rejected the facial due process and equal protection challenges, finding the statute was rationally related to legitimate state interests such as ensuring service availability and safety.

Historically, during the Lochner era (roughly early 20th century), the U.S. Supreme Court aggressively scrutinized economic regulations, often invalidating them facially under the doctrine of substantive due process if they interfered with freedom of contract. This interventionist approach has largely been abandoned, and courts now generally afford significant deference to legislative judgments in the economic sphere.

Civil Rights Cases

Disability (Americans with Disabilities Act – ADA): The ADA prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in employment, government services, and public accommodations. Most ADA cases are as-applied challenges, focusing on whether an individual was unlawfully denied a reasonable accommodation or faced discrimination in a specific instance.

For example, in Bragdon v. Abbott (1998), the Supreme Court held that HIV infection qualifies as a disability under the ADA in the context of a specific denial of dental treatment. A facial challenge to an ADA-related policy might argue that the policy itself inherently discriminates, for example, by imposing a blanket exclusion of people with certain disabilities from a program, regardless of their individual abilities.

Housing (Fair Housing Act – FHA): The FHA prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, or disability. Challenges can be based on disparate treatment (intentional discrimination) or disparate impact (a facially neutral policy that has a significant adverse effect on a protected group without justification).

An early example of a facial challenge in housing was Buchanan v. Warley (1917), where the Supreme Court declared a racially biased zoning ordinance unconstitutional on its face because it explicitly prohibited Black individuals from residing on blocks where the majority of residents were white.

More contemporary cases, such as United States v. Countrywide and United States v. Wells Fargo, involved allegations that lending practices, while perhaps appearing neutral, had a discriminatory disparate impact on minority borrowers – effectively an as-applied challenge based on outcomes.

Employment (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964): Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Similar to the FHA, claims can involve allegations of disparate treatment or disparate impact.

The landmark case of Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971) established that facially neutral employment practices, such as requiring a high school diploma or achieving a certain score on standardized tests, are unlawful under Title VII if they have a disparate impact on a protected group and aren’t shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity.

More recently, Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (2024) addressed an as-applied challenge to a specific job transfer. The Supreme Court clarified that an employee alleging a discriminatory transfer under Title VII must show “some” harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment, but that harm need not be “significant.”

Why This Matters

These legal mechanisms are fundamental to the American system of checks and balances. They provide avenues for individuals and groups to question the constitutionality of laws and government actions, ensuring that legislative and executive power remains within constitutional bounds.

The outcomes of these challenges can directly affect laws governing a vast array of human activity, including freedom of speech, the right to vote, privacy, employment conditions, access to housing, and fair treatment in the criminal justice system. A successful facial challenge can remove an unjust law entirely. A successful as-applied challenge can prevent a law from being used unfairly against specific people or situations.

Knowing how laws can be challenged empowers citizens. It demystifies a significant part of the legal and governmental process and reinforces the crucial idea that the government and its laws are not above scrutiny. This understanding contributes to a more transparent and accessible system of governance.

Ultimately, understanding these types of legal challenges is a form of civic empowerment. The government operates through laws, but not all laws are perfect or just; some may infringe on constitutional rights. Facial and as-applied challenges are the primary legal avenues through which citizens can contest such laws. This knowledge allows citizens to better understand how their rights are protected and how they can participate in the ongoing constitutional dialogue that shapes the nation.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.