https://challenge-atlas.mathlawguy.chatgpt.site/assets/CaseLibrary-CRY3N9iF.js

1import{r as e}from"./rolldown-runtime-S-ySWqyJ.js";import{i as t,r as n}from"./framework-CXnKph_e.js";import"./link-_AAwk5U6.js";var r=e(t(),1),i=n();function a(){return(0,i.jsx)(`span`,{"aria-hidden":`true`,children:`↗`})}var o=[{year:`1987`,name:`United States v. Salerno`,citation:`481 U.S. 739`,posture:`Facial`,area:`Due process`,rule:`The canonical general formulation: a facial challenger must show no set of circumstances in which the Act would be valid.`,why:`The starting point—not always the ending point. Later cases retain the demanding baseline while refining the relevant universe of applications and recognizing doctrine-specific tests.`,practice:`A defender needs a legally relevant valid application. A challenger should explain why suggested counterexamples fall outside the law’s actual authorization or invoke a doctrine-specific rule.`,tags:[`baseline`,`no-set-of-circumstances`,`criminal`],url:`https://app.midpage.ai/document/united-states-v-salerno-111891?utm_source=mcp`},{year:`2003`,name:`Virginia v. Hicks`,citation:`539 U.S. 113`,posture:`Boundary`,area:`First Amendment`,rule:`First Amendment overbreadth is an exception: substantial protected-speech applications, judged against the law’s plainly legitimate sweep, can suspend all enforcement.`,why:`It explains both the exceptional remedy and its rationale—the risk that threatened enforcement will chill people who never litigate.`,practice:`Quantify and concretize the protected applications. The exception weakens as the law moves away from speech toward ordinary conduct.`,tags:[`overbreadth`,`speech`,`chilling-effect`],url:`https://app.midpage.ai/document/virginia-v-hicks-130149?utm_source=mcp`},{year:`2006`,name:`Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood`,citation:`546 U.S. 320`,posture:`Remedies`,area:`Severability`,rule:`When some applications are unconstitutional, narrower declaratory or injunctive relief is ordinarily preferred to total invalidation.`,why:`Ayotte separates the constitutional defect from the remedial choice and puts severability, legislative intent, and judicial competence at center stage.`,practice:`Brief the remedial fallback. Explain whether a clean line can isolate the defect without rewriting the statute or invading the legislative domain.`,tags:[`severability`,`partial-invalidation`,`injunction`],url:`https://app.midpage.ai/document/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-9247581?utm_source=mcp`},{year:`2008`,name:`Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party`,citation:`552 U.S. 442`,posture:`Facial`,area:`Elections`,rule:`Facial challenges are disfavored; speculation and hypothetical applications cannot displace a law with a plainly legitimate sweep.`,why:`The Court links the demanding standard to bare records, premature interpretation, judicial restraint, and the democratic process.`,practice:`Defenders should expose factual speculation. Challengers should ground the application map in statutory text, authoritative construction, and a record.`,tags:[`judicial-restraint`,`legitimate-sweep`,`elections`],url:`https://app.midpage.ai/document/washington-state-grange-v-washington-145824?utm_source=mcp`},{year:`2010`,name:`Citizens United v. FEC`,citation:`558 U.S. 310`,posture:`Boundary`,area:`First Amendment`,rule:`The distinction is not a pleading switch with automatic effect; it chiefly concerns how much invalidity must be shown and how broad the remedy may be.`,why:`It warns against treating labels as jurisdictional talismans while preserving the importance of claim scope and remedy.`,practice:`Plead the preserved constitutional claim and requested relief precisely. Expect a court to look past labels to the real reach of the theory.`,tags:[`labels`,`pleading`,`campaign-finance`],url:`https://app.midpage.ai/document/citizens-united-v-federal-election-1741?utm_source=mcp`},{year:`2010`,name:`Doe v. Reed`,citation:`561 U.S. 186`,posture:`Boundary`,area:`First Amendment`,rule:`The label is not what matters. A claim is facial to the extent the theory and requested injunction reach beyond the plaintiffs’ circumstances.`,why:`The Court rejected the broad claim while preserving a narrower as-applied path based on evidence of threats, harassment, or reprisals.`,practice:`Use nested claims: challenge the broad rule, but plead the concrete exemption theory and supporting proof as an express fallback.`,tags:[`claim-scope`,`disclosure`,`fallback`],url:`https://app.midpage.ai/document/doe-v-reed-150541?utm_source=mcp`},{year:`2015`,name:`City of Los Angeles v. Patel`,citation:`576 U.S. 409`,posture:`Facial`,area:`Fourth Amendment`,rule:`Define applications by what the challenged law actually authorizes—not searches independently justified by warrants, consent, or exigency.`,why:`Patel shows that the denominator is a legal question. Facial Fourth Amendment challenges are not categorically barred or uniquely disfavored.`,practice:`Fight over the universe before counting. Ask whether a proposed valid application depends on authority outside the challenged law.`,tags:[`denominator`,`searches`,`precompliance-review`],url:`https://app.midpage.ai/document/los-angeles-v-patel-2810524?utm_source=mcp`},{year:`2019`,name:`Bucklew v. Precythe`,citation:`587 U.S. 119`,posture:`Boundary`,area:`Eighth Amendment`,rule:`Facial and as-applied labels do not change the substantive rule; they change how much invalidity must be shown and the breadth of relief.`,why:`This is the clearest modern statement that the distinction runs along proof and remedy—not a separate merits test by itself.`,practice:`Do not argue that ‘as applied’ relaxes an element of the constitutional claim. Use it to narrow facts, proof, and relief.`,tags:[`substantive-rule`,`proof`,`remedy`],url:`https://app.midpage.ai/document/bucklew-v-precythe-4382886?utm_source=mcp`},{year:`2024`,name:`Moody v. NetChoice, LLC`,citation:`603 U.S. 707`,posture:`Facial`,area:`First Amendment`,rule:`Map the law’s full set of applications, decide which are constitutional, then compare the two sets under the substantial-overbreadth standard.`,why:`The Court vacated because the lower courts analyzed only the heartland applications. It is the modern field manual for facial First Amendment methodology.`,practice:`Build an application matrix by regulated actor, feature, conduct, and enforcement mechanism. Do not stop with the plaintiff’s strongest example.`,tags:[`application-map`,`overbreadth`,`platforms`],url:`https://app.midpage.ai/document/moody-v-netchoice-llc-10453796?utm_source=mcp`},{year:`2024`,name:`United States v. Rahimi`,citation:`602 U.S. 680`,posture:`Facial`,area:`Second Amendment`,rule:`A court evaluating a facial attack must test the circumstances in which the law is most likely constitutional, not manufacture doubtful hypotheticals.`,why:`One constitutional application—temporary disarmament after a finding of credible threat—defeated the facial challenge while leaving other applications open.`,practice:`Defenders should lead with the strongest historically grounded application. Challengers should consider whether a narrower challenge avoids that obstacle.`,tags:[`second-amendment`,`strongest-application`,`history`],url:`https://app.midpage.ai/document/united-states-v-rahimi-10145945?utm_source=mcp`},{year:`2025`,name:`Bondi v. Vanderstok`,citation:`604 U.S. 35`,posture:`Facial`,area:`Administrative law`,rule:`A broad statutory challenge to an agency rule fails when at least some regulated products lawfully fall within the governing statute.`,why:`The same facial logic matters outside constitutional merits: lawful applications defeated the challenge while product-specific disputes remained available.`,practice:`Separate a claim that the rule is invali

1d on its face from future as-applied disputes at the regulatory boundary.`,tags:[`APA`,`agency-rule`,`statutory`],url:`https://app.midpage.ai/document/bondi-v-vanderstok-10831113?utm_source=mcp`,official:`https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-852_o7jp.pdf`},{year:`2025`,name:`Trump v. CASA, Inc.`,citation:`606 U.S. 831`,posture:`Remedies`,area:`Federal courts`,rule:`Universal injunctions likely exceed federal equitable authority; relief cannot be broader than needed to give complete relief to plaintiffs with standing.`,why:`A facial merits theory does not itself authorize nonparty relief. Claim breadth and plaintiff reach are distinct remedial questions.`,practice:`If relief must protect a group, confront Rule 23 or another lawful vehicle directly. Do not treat facial invalidity as universal injunction.`,tags:[`universal-injunction`,`standing`,`Rule-23`],url:`https://app.midpage.ai/document/trump-v-casa-inc-revisions-11086521?utm_source=mcp`},{year:`2026`,name:`United States v. Hemani`,citation:`608 U.S. ___`,posture:`As applied`,area:`Second Amendment`,rule:`Section 922(g)(3) was unconstitutional as applied to a regular marijuana user where the prosecution lacked individualized proof of danger or incapacity.`,why:`A current model of narrow adjudication: the Court identified the precise application and expressly left addicts, present intoxication, other drugs, and individualized dangerousness unresolved.`,practice:`Define the facts that make this enforcement unconstitutional and the nearby facts the court need not decide. Narrowness can be a source of strength.`,tags:[`second-amendment`,`criminal`,`narrow-holding`],url:`https://app.midpage.ai/document/united-states-v-hemani--4d452ab7-3a2c-4ef3-bf8b-0c72608657b5?utm_source=mcp`,official:`https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1234_new_6k47.pdf`},{year:`2026`,name:`Wolford v. Lopez`,citation:`609 U.S. ___`,posture:`As applied`,area:`Second Amendment`,rule:`Hawaii’s express-permission rule was invali

1d in its application to licensed carry on private property open to the public.`,why:`The holding targets a defined property category while leaving private owners free to exclude firearms and leaving other sensitive-place restrictions unaddressed.`,practice:`Pair the right, regulated location, and plaintiff class. State exactly which adjacent categories remain outside the requested injunction.`,tags:[`second-amendment`,`injunction`,`property`],url:`https://app.midpage.ai/document/wolford-v-lopez--1c5ed84f-9a5a-4e2a-83a1-a4334600f964?utm_source=mcp`,official:`https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1046_nmio.pdf`}],s=[`All`,`Facial`,`As applied`,`Remedies`,`Boundary`];function c(){let[e,t]=(0,r.useState)(`All`),[n,c]=(0,r.useState)(``),[l,u]=(0,r.useState)(null),d=(0,r.useMemo)(()=>{let t=n.trim().toLowerCase();return o.filter(n=>{let r=e===`All`||n.posture===e,i=[n.name,n.citation,n.area,n.rule,n.why,...n.tags].join(` `).toLowerCase();return r&&(!t||i.includes(t))})},[e,n]);return(0,i.jsxs)(i.Fragment,{children:[(0,i.jsxs)(`section`,{className:`case-tools`,children:[(0,i.jsx)(`div`,{className:`filters`,role:`group`,"aria-label":`Filter cases`,children:s.map(n=>(0,i.jsx)(`button`,{className:e===n?`active`:``,onClick:()=>t(n),children:n},n))}),(0,i.jsxs)(`label`,{className:`search`,children:[(0,i.jsx)(`span`,{className:`sr-only`,children:`Search cases`}),(0,i.jsx)(`input`,{value:n,onChange:e=>c(e.target.value),placeholder:`Search case, doctrine, or tag`}),(0,i.jsx)(`span`,{"aria-hidden":`true`,children:`⌕`})]})]}),(0,i.jsxs)(`div`,{className:`case-count`,children:[(0,i.jsx)(`b`,{children:d.length}),` opinions in view`]}),(0,i.jsxs)(`section`,{className:`case-list`,"aria-label":`Key opinions`,children:[d.map(e=>{let t=l===e.name;return(0,i.jsxs)(`article`,{className:`case-card ${t?`open`:``}`,children:[(0,i.jsxs)(`div`,{className:`case-main`,children:[(0,i.jsxs)(`div`,{className:`case-meta`,children:[(0,i.jsx)(`span`,{children:e.year}),(0,i.jsx)(`span`,{className:`posture posture-${e.posture.toLowerCase().replace(` `,`-`)}`,children:e.posture})]}),(0,i.jsxs)(`div`,{className:`case-name`,children:[(0,i.jsx)(`h2`,{children:e.name}),(0,i.jsxs)(`p`,{children:[e.citation,` · `,e.area]})]}),(0,i.jsx)(`p`,{className:`case-rule`,children:e.rule}),(0,i.jsxs)(`div`,{className:`opinion-actions`,children:[(0,i.jsxs)(`a`,{className:`opinion-link`,href:e.url,target:`_blank`,rel:`noreferrer`,children:[`Read opinion `,(0,i.jsx)(a,{})]}),e.official&&(0,i.jsxs)(`a`,{className:`official-link`,href:e.official,target:`_blank`,rel:`noreferrer`,children:[`Official Supreme Court PDF `,(0,i.jsx)(a,{})]}),(0,i.jsxs)(`button`,{className:`detail-toggle`,onClick:()=>u(t?null:e.name),"aria-expanded":t,children:[t?`Hide analysis`:`Why it matters`,` `,(0,i.jsx)(`span`,{children:t?`−`:`+`})]})]})]}),t&&(0,i.jsxs)(`div`,{className:`case-detail`,children:[(0,i.jsxs)(`div`,{children:[(0,i.jsx)(`span`,{children:`Why it matters`}),(0,i.jsx)(`p`,{children:e.why})]}),(0,i.jsxs)(`div`,{children:[(0,i.jsx)(`span`,{children:`Practice note`}),(0,i.jsx)(`p`,{children:e.practice})]}),(0,i.jsx)(`div`,{className:`tags`,children:e.tags.map(e=>(0,i.jsx)(`span`,{children:e},e))})]})]},e.name)}),d.length===0&&(0,i.jsx)(`div`,{className:`empty-state`,children:`No cases match that combination. Try a broader term or select “All.”`})]})]})}export{c as CaseLibrary};