ABSTRACT
The overbreadth doctrine permits a litigant whose own speech is unprotected by the First Amendment to challenge a law's constitutionality based on the free speech rights of persons who are not party to the lawsuit. The overbreadth doctrine is most commonly characterized as an exception to the rule against "third- party standing." The overbreadth doctrine's primary justification is that permitting only as-applied challenges to speech restrictions would chill the exercise of protected free speech. The doctrine illustrates two subtle points about the law of civil liberties in America. First, it exemplifies an ongoing battle between liberals and conservatives over the proper role for the federal courts in protecting civil liberties. Second, because the doctrine applies exclusively to restraints on free speech, it strongly indicates that this right occupies a paramount position in the hierarchy of civil liberties protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
