Whether a plaintiff need show that a law is vague in all of its applications to succeed in a facial vagueness challenge

QUESTION PRESENTED In United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745 (1987), this Court held that to maintain a facial challenge, a plaintiff must establish that “no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.” 481 U.S. at 745. The federal courts of appeals are starkly split on the question of whether this rule was relaxed by the Court in the context of vagueness cases in Johnson v. United States, 135 8. Ct. 2551 (2015), and Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 8. Ct. 1204 (2018). The Fourth and Eighth Circuits have answered in the affirmative. See Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114, 148 fn.19 (4t6 Cir. 2017); United States v. Bramer, 832 F.3d 908 (8 Cir. 2016). By contrast, the Second Circuit expressly insisted below that no such relaxation has taken place. Copeland v. Vance, 893 F.3d 101, 113 fn.3 (2d Cir. 2018). The question presented is: Whether a plaintiff need show that a law is vague in all of its applications to succeed in a facial vagueness challenge.