Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

 In United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S. Ct. 2095, 95 L. Ed. 2d 697 (1987), the Supreme Court held that, to succeed in a facial constitutional challenge, 'the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the [law] would be valid.' However, in considering facial challenges to abortion restrictions, every circuit, with one exception, has applied Casey's [See Abortion (undue burden] test rather than Salerno's more restrictive 'no set of circumstances' test. See Nat'l Abortion Fed'n v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d at 294 (Walker, Jr., C.J., concurring) ('As it stands now, however, the Supreme Court appears to have adopted the 'large fraction' standard . . . for those who seek to challenge an abortion regulation as facially unconstitutional.'); Richmond Med. Ctr. for Women v. Hicks, 409 F.3d 619, 628 (4th Cir. 2005) (holding that ' Salerno's 'no set of circumstances' standard does not apply in the context of a facial challenge . . . to a statute regulating a woman's access to abortion'); Planned Parenthood v. Heed, 390 F.3d 53, 57 (1st Cir. 2004), vacated on other grounds by Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, 546 U.S. ...

Register or login to access full content