noting a facial constitutional challenge requires proof that “no set of circumstances exists under which the statute would be valid, that -is, that the law is unconstitutional in all its applications.”
How later courts described this case
- noting a facial constitutional challenge requires proof that “no set of circumstances exists under which the statute would be valid, that -is, that the law is unconstitutional in all its applications.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HUGHES, J.,
dissenting.
11 Aside from the merits of this particular termination, which are not before us, I must respectfully dissent. Due process after the fact is an oxymoron. Post-termination review is not quite so meaningful when there is no pay check to support it. Hopefully, the 2014 changes to the law will work better.