126 S.Ct. 961, 163 L.Ed.2d 812 (2006) (“[T]he ‘normal rule’ is that ‘partial, rather than facial, invalidation is the required course,’ such that a ‘statute may ... be declared invalid to the extent that it reaches too far, but otherwise left intact.’ ” (citation omitted)); see also Commodity Trend Serv., Inc. v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n, 149 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir.1998) (warning that courts should be “mindful of the Supreme Court’s strong admonition that a court should adjudicate the merits of an as-applied challenge before reaching a facial challenge to the same statute,” and that if the plaintiff “succeeds on its as-applied challenge, the district court should not conduct further proceedings concerning the facial challenge.”); Doe v. Heck, 327 F.3d 492, 527-28 (7th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, if a plaintiff succeeds on an
holding that facial challenges will be sustained only if no set of circumstances exist under which the act would be valid holding that where the appellants listed challenges in the statement of issues but failed to brief them the challenges were waived recognizing that courts should exercise judicial restraint in a facial challenge holding that courts should exercise judicial restraint and decide asapplied challenges before facial challenges holding that challenges to an arrest warrant are not jurisdictional