But as we have indicated, this kind of facial challenge also falls short.

A facial challenge takes issue with the entire law, and such challenges had already been dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Thus, largely because of its narrow scope, the facial challenge to the ordinance must fail.

On its face violates a provision of the Constitution (facial challenge).

Since the Euclid case, there have been no more facial challenges to the general scheme.

Plaintiffs, in turn, have moved for summary judgment on their facial challenge to the "decency clause."

That should settle the matter of respondents' facial challenge to the Ordinance's vagueness.

The Court categorized the cause of action in this case as a "facial challenge" to the Act.

I see no need to reach that question in the context of the facial challenges to the New York and Washington laws at issue here.

She did not, however, think that the Court needed to consider the conflict beyond rejecting the facial challenges to the statute.