6 MOODY v. NETCHOICE, LLC THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment branch [is vested] with an exclusive form of power,” and “no branch can encroach upon the powers confided to the others.” Patchak v. Zinke, 583 U. S. 244, 250 (2018) (plurality opinion) (internal quotation marks omitted). In the Judicial Branch’s case, it is vested with the “ultimate and supreme” power of judicial review. Chicago & Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Wellman, 143 U. S. 339, 345 (1892). That power includes the authority to refuse to apply a statute enacted and approved by the other two branches of the Federal Government. But, the power of judicial review can be wielded only in specific circumstances and to limited ends—to resolve cases and controversies. Without that limitation, the Judiciary would have an unchecked ability to enjoin duly enacted statutes. Respecting the case-or-controversy requirement is therefore necessary to “preven[t] the Federal Judiciary from intruding upon the powers given to the other branches, and confin[e] the federal courts to a properly judicial role.” Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc., 581 U. S. 433, 438 (2017) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). 2 Facial challenges conflict with Article III’s case-orcontroversy requirement because they ask a federal court to decide whether a statute might conflict with the Constitution in cases that are not before the court. To bring a facial challenge under our precedents, a plaintiff must ordinarily “establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid.” United States v. Salerno, 481 U. S. 739, 745 (1987). In the First Amendment context, we have sometimes applied an even looser standard, called the overbreadth doctrine. The overbreadth doctrine requires a plaintiff to establish only that a statute “prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech,” “relative to [its] plainly legitimate sweep.” United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. 285, 292 (2008).