behalf.” 24 . Plaintiffs articulate the standard for facial constitutional challenges as whether "no set of circumstances exists under which the [the provision] would be valid,” United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987), or whether the [provision] lacks any "plainly legitimate sweep,” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 740 n. 7, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997)(Stevens, J., concurring in judgments)(internal quotation marks omitted). However, these standards are applied to facial challenges to statutes, not regulations. See U.S. v. Stevens, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1577, 1587, 176 L.Ed.2d 435 (2010). Since the challenged provisions here include a New Jersey Parole Board policy and sections of the administrative code, t 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005) (<HOLDING>). 26 . Defendants argue in the alternative that
holding that execution of juveniles violates the eighth and fourteenth amendments holding that the execution of mentally retarded criminals violates the eighth amendment holding that the execution of individuals who were under 18 years of age at the time they committed capital crimes violates the eighth and fourteenth amendments to the united states constitution holding references to a defendants lack of remorse violate the fifth eighth and fourteenth amendments holding that adam walsh act violates the eighth amendments prohibition against excessive bail and the fifth amendments guarantee of procedural due process