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 order to prevail on a cause of action that challenges a statute for being facially unconstitutional a party must establish that there is no set of circumstances under which the statute may be constitutionally applied. Williams v. Pryor, 240 F.3d 944, 953 (11th Cir. 2001). 'This 'heavy burden' makes such an attack 'the most difficult challenge to mount successfully' against an enactment.' Horton v. City of St. Augustine, Fla., 272 F.3d 1318, 1329 (11th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). 

Facial invalidation 'is, manifestly, strong medicine' that 'has been employed by the Court sparingly and only as a last resort.' Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U. S. 601, 613 (1973); see also FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U. S. 215, 223 (1990) (noting that 'facial challenges to legislation are generally disfavored'). To prevail, the parties must demonstrate a substantial risk that application of the alleged invalid provisions will lead to the suppression of speech. See Broadrick, supra, at 615. 

In cases where the court has struck down legislation as facially unconstitutional, the dangers were both evident and substantial. In R. A. v: v. St. Paul, 505 U. S. 377 (1992), for example, ...

Register or login to access full content