U.S. Supreme Court

SECRETARY OF STATE OF MD. v. J. H. MUNSON CO., 467 U.S. 947 (1984)

467 U.S. 947

SECRETARY OF STATE OF MARYLAND v. JOSEPH H. MUNSON CO., INC.

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND

No. 82-766.

Argued October 31, 1983

Decided June 26, 1984

A Maryland statute prohibits a charitable organization, in connection with any fundraising activity, from paying expenses of more than 25% of the amount raised, but authorizes a waiver of this limitation where it would effectively prevent the organization from raising contributions. Respondent is a professional fundraiser whose Maryland customers include various chapters of the Fraternal Order of Police, at least one of whom was reluctant to contract with respondent because of the statute's percentage limitation. Respondent brought suit in a Maryland Circuit Court for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that it regularly charges an FOP chapter in excess of the 25% limitation, that petitioner Secretary of State had informed it that if it refused to comply with the statute it would be prosecuted, and that the statute violated its right to free speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Without addressing petitioner's argument that respondent lacked standing to assert its claims, the Circuit Court upheld the statute, and the Maryland Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The Maryland Court of Appeals reversed, holding that respondent had standing to challenge the statute's facial validity, that the statute was unconstitutional, and that its flaws were not remedied by the waiver provision.

Held:

1. Respondent has standing to challenge the statute. Not only does respondent satisfy the "case" or "controversy" requirement of Art. III, because it has suffered both threatened and actual injury as a result of the statute, but there also is no prudential reason against allowing respondent to challenge the statute. Where the claim is that the statute is overly broad in violation of the First Amendment, the Court has allowed a party to assert the rights of another without regard to the ability of the other to assert his own claim. The activity sought to be protected is at the heart of the business relationship between respondent and its customers, and respondent's interests in challenging the statute are completely consistent with the First Amendment interests of the charities it represents. Petitioner's concern that respondent should not have standing to challenge the statute as overbroad because it has not demonstrated that the statute's overbreadth is "substantial," is more properly

reserved for the determination of respondent's challenge on the merits. Pp. 954-959.

2. Regardless of the waiver provision, the statute is unconstitutionally overbroad, its percentage restriction on charitable solicitation being an unconstitutional limitation on protected First Amendment solicitation activity. Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment,  444 U.S. 620 . Pp. 959-970.

(a) The waiver provision does not save the statute. Charitable organizations whose high solicitation and administrative costs are due to information dissemination, discussion, and advocacy of public issues, rather than to fraud, remain barred by the statute from carrying on those protected First Amendment activities. Pp. 962-964.

(b) This is not a "substantial overbreadth" case where the plaintiff must demonstrate that the statute "as applied" to him is unconstitutional. Here there is no core of easily identifiable and constitutionally proscribable conduct that the statute prohibits. The statute cannot distinguish organizations that have high fundraising costs not due to protected First Amendment activities from those that have high costs due to protected activity. The flaw in the statute is not simply that it includes some impermissible applications but that in all its applications it operates on a fundamentally mistaken premise that high solicitation costs are an accurate measure of fraud. Where, as here, a statute imposes a direct restriction on protected First Amendment activity and where the statute's defect is that the means chosen to accomplish the State's objectives are too imprecise, so that in all its applications the statute creates an unnecessary risk of chilling free speech, the statute is properly subject to facial attack. Pp. 964-968.

(c) Whether the statute regulates before-or after-the-fact is immaterial. Whether the charity is prevented from engaging in protected First Amendment activity by lack of a solicitation permit or by knowledge that its fundraising activity is illegal if it cannot satisfy the percentage limitation, the chill on the protected activity is the same. The facts that the statute restricts only fundraising expenses and not other expenses and that a charity may elect whether to be bound by its fundraising percentage for the prior year or to apply the 25% limitation on a campaign-by-campaign basis, do nothing to alter the fact that the significant fundraising activity protected by the First Amendment is barred by the percentage limitation. And the fact that the statute regulates all charitable fundraising and not just door-to-door solicitation, does not remedy the fact that the statute promotes the State's interests only peripherally. Pp. 968-970.

294 Md. 160, 448 A. 2d 935, affirmed.

BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 970. REHNQUIST, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BURGER, C. J., and POWELL and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined, post, p. 975.

Diana G. Motz, Assistant Attorney General of Maryland, argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the briefs were Stephen H. Sachs, Attorney General, and James G. Klair and Robert A. Zarnoch, Assistant Attorneys General.

Yale L. Goldberg argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Donald E. Sinrod.^{Footnote *}

Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. by Robert B. Hummel, Thomas J. McGrew, Charles S. Sims, and Arthur B. Spitzer; for Independent Sector et al. by Adam Yarmolinsky, Stephen T. Owen, and Michael B. Jennison; and for Box Office, Inc., by Barry A. Fisher, Robert C. Moest, and David Grosz.

JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.

In Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment,  444 U.S. 620 (1980), this Court, with one dissenting vote, concluded that a municipal ordinance prohibiting the solicitation of contributions by a charitable organization that did not use at least 75% of its receipts for "charitable purposes" was unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The issue in the present case is whether a Maryland statute with a like percentage limitation, but with provisions that render it more "flexible" than the

Schaumburg ordinance, can withstand constitutional attack. The Court of Appeals of Maryland concluded that, even with this increased flexibility, the percentage restriction on charitable solicitation was an unconstitutional limitation on protected First Amendment solicitation activity. We agree with that conclusion and affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

I

Joseph H. Munson Co., Inc. (Munson), an Indiana corporation, instituted this action in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Md., seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Secretary of State of Maryland (Secretary). Munson is a professional for-profit fundraiser in the business of promoting fundraising events and giving advice to customers on how those events should be conducted. Its Maryland customers include various chapters of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP).

Section 103A et seq., Art. 41, Md. Ann. Code (1982),[^{Footnote 1} ] concern charitable organizations. Section 103D prohibits such an organization, in connection with any fundraising activity, from paying or agreeing to pay as expenses more than 25% of the amount raised.[^{Footnote 2} ] Munson in its complaint alleged that it

regularly charges an FOP chapter an amount in excess of 25% of the gross raised for the event it promotes. App. 4. Munson also alleged that the Secretary had informed it that it was subject to 103D and would be prosecuted if it failed to comply with the provisions of that statute. App. 5.

In its initial complaint, filed March 7, 1978, Munson took the position that its contracts with the FOP should not be subject to 103A et seq. The Circuit Court dismissed that challenge for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court concluded, however, that Munson could attack the statutes as an improper delegation of legislative authority, in

violation of the Maryland Constitution. App. 13. Munson then amended its complaint to allege that the statutes effected an unconstitutional infringement on its right to free speech and assembly under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Id., at 26.

The Secretary questioned Munson's standing to assert its claims. He urged that 103D is directed to acts of charitable organizations and, therefore, that only an organization of that kind can challenge the statute's constitutionality. The Secretary also urged that Munson's claims presented no actual controversy, because Munson had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies and, consequently, there had been no binding determination that the statute would apply to Munson's contracts. App. 29.

The Circuit Court did not address the standing argument, but upheld the statute on the merits. App. to Pet. for Cert. 38a. It concluded that because the statute included a provision authorizing a waiver of the percentage limitation "in those instances where the 25% limitation would effectively prevent a charitable organization from raising contributions," it was sufficiently flexible to accommodate legitimate First Amendment interests. Id., at 46a. The court also rejected Munson's state-law claim that the statute was an impermissible delegation of legislative authority.

Munson appealed to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. The Secretary did not take a cross-appeal. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court. 48 Md. App. 273, 426 A. 2d 985 (1981).

Both Munson and the Secretary then petitioned the Court of Appeals of Maryland for writs of certiorari. Munson challenged the validity of the statute and the Secretary challenged Munson's standing. The court granted both petitions and, by a unanimous vote, reversed the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals. 294 Md. 160, 448 A. 2d 935 (1982). It expressed doubt about the Secretary's ability to challenge Munson's standing when the Secretary had not taken an appeal from the Circuit Court's judgment, but, assuming that

the issue was properly before the court, nonetheless concluded that Munson did have standing to challenge the facial validity of 103D. The court found that, based on the allegations of its complaint and under the facts as stipulated in the trial court, see App. to Pet. for Cert. 39a, Munson clearly had suffered injury as a result of 103D.[^{Footnote 3} ] The court rejected the contention that Munson may not assert the First Amendment rights of the FOP chapters, noting that where a statute is directed at persons with whom the plaintiff has a business or professional relationship, and impairs the plaintiff in that relationship, it normally is accorded standing to challenge the validity of the statute. 294 Md., at 171, 448 A. 2d, at 941. In addition, as this Court in Schaumburg held, 444 U.S., at 634, "[g]iven a case or controversy, a litigant whose own activities are unprotected may nevertheless challenge a statute by showing that it substantially abridges the First Amendment rights of other parties not before the court." 294 Md., at 172, 448 A. 2d, at 942.

On the merits, the court concluded that Schaumburg required that the Maryland statute be ruled unconstitutional. It rejected the Secretary's argument that the statute was valid because it did not require a permit prior to solicitation, and imposed criminal penalties only for solicitation in violation of the statute. 294 Md., at 176-179, 448 A. 2d, at 944-945. The court also concluded that the flaws in the statute were not remedied by the provision authorizing a waiver of the 25% limitation whenever it would effectively prevent the charitable organization from raising contributions. Id., at 179-181, 448 A. 2d, at 945-946. The court found that the statutory authorization for an exemption from the percentage limitation is "extremely narrow." It did not remedy the flaw

inherent in a percentage limitation on solicitation costs - that charities that make a policy decision to use more than 25% of the proceeds raised for purposes other than "charitable" are denied their constitutional right to do so, and are lumped together with those engaging in fraud. Id., at 180-181, 448 A. 2d, at 946. In sum, in the view of the Court of Appeals, the 25% limitation, like that in the ordinance addressed in Schaumburg, is not a "narrowly drawn regulatio[n] designed to serve [the State's legitimate] interests without unnecessarily interfering with First Amendment freedoms." 444 U.S., at 637.

We granted certiorari to review both determinations of the Court of Appeals, namely, that Munson had standing to challenge the validity of 103D, and that the statute was unconstitutional on its face. 459 U.S. 1102 (1983).

II

Standing. The first element of the standing inquiry that Munson must satisfy in this Court is the "case" or "controversy" requirement of Art. III of the United States Constitution. Singleton v. Wulff,  428 U.S. 106, 112 (1976).[^{Footnote 4} ] Munson is a professional fundraising company. Because its contracts call for payment in excess of 25% of the funds raised for a given event, it is subject, under 103L, to civil restraint and criminal liability. Prior to initiation of the present lawsuit, the Secretary informed Munson that if it refused to comply with 103D, it would be prosecuted. The parties stipulated before trial that the Montgomery County Chapter of the FOP was reluctant to enter into a contract with Munson because of the limitation imposed by 103D. Munson has

suffered both threatened and actual injury as a result of the statute. See Singleton v. Wulff, supra; Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization,  426 U.S. 26 (1976); Linda R. S. v. Richard D.,  410 U.S. 614, 617 (1973).

In addition to the limitations on standing imposed by Art. III's case-or-controversy requirement, there are prudential considerations that limit the challenges courts are willing to hear. "[T]he plaintiff generally must assert his own legal rights and interests, and cannot rest his claim to relief on the legal rights or interests of third parties." Warth v. Seldin,  422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975) (citing Tileston v. Ullman,  318 U.S. 44 (1943); United States v. Raines,  362 U.S. 17 (1960); and Barrows v. Jackson,  346 U.S. 249 (1953)). The reason for this rule is twofold. The limitation "frees the Court not only from unnecessary pronouncement on constitutional issues, but also from premature interpretations of statutes in areas where their constitutional application might be cloudy," United States v. Raines, 362 U.S., at 22, and it assures the court that the issues before it will be concrete and sharply presented.[^{Footnote 5} ] See Baker v. Carr,  369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962). Munson is not a charity and does not claim that its own First Amendment rights have been or will be infringed by the challenged statute.[^{Footnote 6} ] Accordingly, the Secretary insists that

Munson should not be heard to complain that the State's charitable-solicitation rule violates the First Amendment.

The Secretary concedes, however, that there are situations where competing considerations outweigh any prudential rationale against third-party standing, and that this Court has relaxed the prudential-standing limitation when such concerns are present. Where practical obstacles prevent a party from asserting rights on behalf of itself, for example, the Court has recognized the doctrine of jus tertii standing. In such a situation, the Court considers whether the third party has sufficient injury-in-fact to satisfy the Art. III case-or-controversy requirement, and whether, as a prudential matter, the third party can reasonably be expected properly to frame the issues and present them with the necessary adversarial zeal. See, e. g., Craig v. Boren,  429 U.S. 190, 193 -194 (1976).

Within the context of the First Amendment, the Court has enunciated other concerns that justify a lessening of prudential limitations on standing. Even where a First Amendment challenge could be brought by one actually engaged in protected activity, there is a possibility that, rather than risk punishment for his conduct in challenging the statute, he will refrain from engaging further in the protected activity. Society as a whole then would be the loser. Thus, when there is a danger of chilling free speech, the concern that constitutional adjudication be avoided whenever possible may be outweighed by society's interest in having the statute challenged. "Litigants, therefore, are permitted to challenge a statute not because their own rights of free expression are violated, but because of a judicial prediction or assumption

that the statute's very existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or expression." Broadrick v. Oklahoma,  413 U.S. 601, 612 (1973).[^{Footnote 7} ]

In the instant case, the Secretary's most serious argument against allowing Munson to challenge the statute is that there is no showing that a charity cannot bring its own lawsuit. Although such an argument might defeat a party's standing outside the First Amendment context, this Court has not found the argument dispositive in determining whether standing exists to challenge a statute that allegedly chills free speech. To the contrary, where the claim is that a statute is overly broad in violation of the First Amendment, the Court has allowed a party to assert the rights of another without regard to the ability of the other to assert his own claims and "`with no requirement that the person making the attack demonstrate that his own conduct could not be regulated by a statute drawn with the requisite narrow specificity.'" Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S., at 612, quoting Dombrowski v. Pfister,  380 U.S. 479, 486 (1965). See also Schaumburg, 444 U.S., at 634 ("Given a case or controversy, a litigant whose own activities are unprotected may nevertheless challenge a statute by showing that it substantially

abridges the First Amendment rights of other parties not before the court").

The fact that, because Munson is not a charity, there might not be a possibility that the challenged statute could restrict Munson's own First Amendment rights does not alter the analysis. Facial challenges to overly broad statutes are allowed not primarily for the benefit of the litigant, but for the benefit of society - to prevent the statute from chilling the First Amendment rights of other parties not before the court. Munson's ability to serve that function has nothing to do with whether or not its own First Amendment rights are at stake. The crucial issues are whether Munson satisfies the requirement of "injury-in-fact," and whether it can be expected satisfactorily to frame the issues in the case. If so, there is no reason that Munson need also be a charity. If not, Munson could not bring this challenge even if it were a charity.

The Secretary concedes that the Art. III case-or-controversy requirement has been met, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 5, and the Secretary has come forward with no reason why Munson is an inadequate advocate to assert the charities' rights. The activity sought to be protected is at the heart of the business relationship between Munson and its clients, and Munson's interests in challenging the statute are completely consistent with the First Amendment interests of the charities it represents. We see no prudential reason not to allow it to challenge the statute.

Besides challenging Munson's standing as a "noncharity" to bring its claim, the Secretary urges that Munson should not have standing to challenge the statute as overbroad because it has not demonstrated that the statute's overbreadth is "substantial." See Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S., at 615. The Secretary raises a point of valid concern. The Court has indicated that application of the overbreadth doctrine is "strong medicine" that should be invoked only "as a last resort." Id., at 613. The Secretary's concern, however, is one that is more properly reserved for the determination

of Munson's First Amendment challenge on the merits. The requirement that a statute be "substantially overbroad" before it will be struck down on its face is a "standing" question only to the extent that if the plaintiff does not prevail on the merits of its facial challenge and cannot demonstrate that, as applied to it, the statute is unconstitutional, it has no "standing" to allege that, as applied to others, the statute might be unconstitutional. See Parker v. Levy,  417 U.S. 733, 760 (1974); United States v. Raines, 362 U.S., at 21. See generally Monaghan, Overbreadth, 1981 S. Ct. Rev. 1. We therefore move on to the merits of Munson's First Amendment claim.

III

The Merits. In Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, supra, the Court struck down a municipal ordinance that required every charitable organization, which utilized door-to-door solicitation, to apply for a permit obtainable only on "`[s]atisfactory proof that at least seventy-five per cent of the proceeds of such solicitations will be used directly for the charitable purpose of the organization.'" Id., at 624. The question before us is whether the distinctions between the Schaumburg ordinance and the Maryland statute are sufficient to render the statute constitutionally acceptable. To answer that question, we reexamine the bases for the conclusion the Court reached in Schaumburg.

A

The Court in Schaumburg determined first that charitable solicitations are so intertwined with speech that they are entitled to the protections of the First Amendment:

"Prior authorities, therefore, clearly establish that charitable appeals for funds, on the street or door to door, involve a variety of speech interests - communication of information, the dissemination and propagation of views and ideas, and the advocacy of causes - that are within the protection of the First Amendment. Soliciting

financial support is undoubtedly subject to reasonable regulation but the latter must be undertaken with due regard for the reality that solicitation is characteristically intertwined with informative and perhaps persuasive speech seeking support for particular causes or for particular views on economic, political, or social issues, and for the reality that without solicitation the flow of such information and advocacy would likely cease." Id., at 632.[^{Footnote 8} ]

Because the percentage limitation restricted the ways in which charities might engage in solicitation activity, the Court concluded that it was a "direct and substantial limitation on protected activity that cannot be sustained unless it

serves a sufficiently strong, subordinating interest that the Village is entitled to protect." Id., at 636. In addition, in order to be valid, the limitation would have to be a "narrowly drawn regulatio[n] designed to serve [the] interes[t] without unnecessarily interfering with First Amendment freedoms." Id., at 637.

Although the Court in Schaumburg recognized that the Village had legitimate interests in protecting the public from fraud, crime, and undue annoyance, it rejected the limitation because it was not a precisely tailored means of accommodating those interests. The Village's asserted interests were only peripherally promoted by the limitation and could be served by measures less intrusive than a direct prohibition on solicitation.

In particular, although the Village's primary interest was in preventing fraud, the Court concluded that the limitation was simply too imprecise an instrument to accomplish that purpose. The justification for the limitation was an assumption that any organization using more than 25% of its receipts on fundraising, salaries, and overhead was not charitable, but was a commercial, for-profit enterprise. Any such enterprise that represented itself as a charity thus was fraudulent.

The flaw in the Village's assumption, as the Court recognized, was that there is no necessary connection between fraud and high solicitation and administrative costs. A number of other factors may result in high costs; the most important of these is that charities often are combining solicitation with dissemination of information, discussion, and advocacy of public issues, an activity clearly protected by the First Amendment and as to which the Village had asserted no legitimate interest in prohibiting. In light of the fact that the interest in protecting against fraud can be accommodated by measures less intrusive than a direct prohibition on solicitation,[^{Footnote 9} ] the Court concluded that the limitation was

insufficiently related to the governmental interests asserted to justify its interference with protected speech.[^{Footnote 10} ]

B

Schaumburg left open the primary question now before this Court - whether the constitutional deficiencies in a percentage limitation on funds expended in solicitation are remedied by the possibility of an administrative waiver of the limitation for a charity that can demonstrate financial necessity. The Court there distinguished a case in which a percentage limitation on solicitation costs had been upheld, see National Foundation v. Fort Worth,  415 F.2d 41 (CA5 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1040 (1970), noting that under the ordinance in Fort Worth, a charity had the opportunity to demonstrate that its solicitation costs, though high, nevertheless were reasonable. See 444 U.S., at 635, n. 9.

Section 103D has a provision similar to that in the Fort Worth ordinance. It directs the Secretary of State to "issue rules and regulations to permit a charitable organization to pay or agree to pay for expenses in connection with a fundraising activity more than 25% of its total gross income in those instances where the 25% limitation would effectively prevent the charitable organization from raising contributions." See n. 2, supra. Having now considered the question left open in Schaumburg, however, we conclude that the waiver provision does not save the statute.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the exception in 103D was "extremely narrow," being confined to instances "where the 25% limitation would effectively prevent the charitable

organization from raising contributions," 294 Md., at 180, 448 A. 2d, at 946, and of no avail to an organization whose high fundraising costs were attributable to legitimate policy decisions about how to use its funds, rather than to inability to raise funds. Under the Court of Appeals' interpretation, the Secretary has no discretion to determine that reasons other than financial necessity warrant a waiver. The statute does not help the charity whose solicitation costs are high because it chooses, as was stipulated here, see App. to Pet. for Cert. 39a, to disseminate information as a part of its fundraising. Thus, the organizations that were of primary concern to the Court in Schaumburg, those whose high costs were due to "`information dissemination, discussion, and advocacy of public issues,'"[^{Footnote 11} ] 444 U.S., at 635, quoting from

Citizens for a Better Environment v. Schaumburg,  590 F.2d 220, 225 (CA7 1978), remain barred by the statute from carrying on those protected First Amendment activities.[^{Footnote 12} ]

C

The Secretary urges that even though there may remain charities whose First Amendment activity is limited by the statute, we should not strike down the statute on its face because, with the waiver provision, it no longer is "substantially overbroad." We are not persuaded.

"Substantial overbreadth" is a criterion the Court has invoked to avoid striking down a statute on its face simply because of the possibility that it might be applied in an unconstitutional manner. It is appropriate in cases where, despite some possibly impermissible application, the "`remainder of

the statute . . . covers a whole range of easily identifiable and constitutionally proscribable . . . conduct . . . .' CSC v. Letter Carriers,  413 U.S. 548, 580 -581 (1973)." Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S., at 760. See also New York v. Ferber,  458 U.S. 747, 770 , n. 25 (1982). In such a case, the Court has required a litigant to demonstrate that the statute "as applied" to him is unconstitutional. Id., at 774.

This is not such a case.[^{Footnote 13} ] Here there is no core of easily identifiable and constitutionally proscribable conduct that the

statute prohibits. While there no doubt are organizations that have high fundraising costs not due to protected First Amendment activity and that, therefore, should not be heard to complain that their activities are prohibited, this statute cannot distinguish those organizations from charities that have high costs due to protected First Amendment activities. The flaw in the statute is not simply that it includes within its sweep some impermissible applications, but that in all its applications it operates on a fundamentally mistaken premise that high solicitation costs are an accurate measure of fraud.[^{Footnote 14} ] That the statute in some of its applications actually prevents the misdirection of funds from the organization's purported charitable goal is little more than fortuitous.[^{Footnote 15} ]

It is equally likely that the statute will restrict First Amendment activity that results in high costs but is itself a part of the charity's goal or that is simply attributable to the fact that the charity's cause proves to be unpopular. On the other hand, if an organization indulges in fraud, there is nothing in the percentage limitation that prevents it from misdirecting funds. In either event, the percentage limitation, though restricting solicitation costs, will have done nothing to prevent fraud.

Where, as here, a statute imposes a direct restriction on protected First Amendment activity,[^{Footnote 16} ] and where the defect

in the statute is that the means chosen to accomplish the State's objectives are too imprecise, so that in all its applications the statute creates an unnecessary risk of chilling free speech, the statute is properly subject to facial attack. Schaumburg, 444 U.S., at 637; First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti,  435 U.S. 765, 786 (1978). See also Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm'n of N. Y.,  447 U.S. 557, 565 , n. 8 (1980); City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent,  466 U.S. 78