4. When a litigant challenges the legality of a zoning law on the theories that the law violates equal protection or is arbitrary and capricious, for “a facial challenge, the remedy is the striking down of the regulation. In the case of an as applied challenge, the remedy is an injunction preventing the unconstitutional application of the regulation to the plaintiffs property and/or damages.... ” Eide v. Sarasota Cnty., 908 F.2d 716, 722 (11th Cir.1990) (citation omitted). This is so because, in a facial challenge, “the claimed constitutional violation inheres in the terms of the statute, not its application ... [t]he remedy is necessarily directed at the statute itself and must be injunctive and declaratory.” Ezell v. City of Chi., 651 F.3d 684, 698 (7th Cir.2011) (citation omitted) (<HOLDING>). Thus, “a victory by the plaintiff in [facial
recognizing that courts should exercise judicial restraint in a facial challenge holding that damages are not relief that is available under the idea holding that damages are not available for a facial challenge to a gun control law holding that generally punitive damages are not available for a breach of contract holding that plaintiff could not request damages for a facial challenge to a zoning ordinance under the first amendment because the provision had not yet harmed the plaintiff