Trump v. Barbara · ¶305
Third, because respondents sought to invalidate the Citizenship Order in its entirety and the District Court granted facial relief, the plaintiffs bear the burden to show that all applications of the Order are unlawful. See post, at 2 (GORSUCH, J., dissenting). Under this Court’s precedent, facial challenges require plaintiffs to establish “that ‘no set of circumstances exists under which the [Order] would be valid.’” Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 603 U. S. 707, 765 (2024) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (quoting United States v. Salerno, 481 U. S. 739, 745 (1987)). To prevent federal courts from invading the political branches’ interest in effectuating policies “enacted by representatives of [the] people,” Maryland v. King, 567 U. S. 1301, 1303 (2012) (ROBERTS, C. J., in chambers) (internal quotation marks omitted), facial invalidation must remain rare and “hard to win.” Moody, 603 U.…Read in context ›
slip opinion, revised 7/01/26
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.