did not engage in any First Amendment analysis. Any First Amendment claim was therefore waived. See, e.g., Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976) (“It is the general rule, of course, that a federal appellate court does not consider an issue not passed upon below.”); N.Y. City Envtl. Justice Alliance v. Giuliani 214 F.3d 65, 67 n. 2 (2d Cir.2000) (“Because plaintiffs’ purported § 1983 claim was neither raised in the complaint nor passed upon by the district court, we decline to review it on this appeal.”). C. The Plaintiffs’ Nonr-First Amendment Vagueness Challenge Whether a facial void-for-vagueness challenge can be maintained when, as here, a challenge is not properly based on the First Amendment is unsettled. **13See Farrell, 449 F.3d at 495 n. 12 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Rybicki 354 F.3d 124, 131-32
recognizing possible conflict between the cases recognizing the conflict recognizing that city of chicago v morales 527 us 41 119 sct 1849 144 led2d 67 1999 east doubt on previous cases that had limited facial challenges for vagueness but declining to resolve the conflict between the two competing standards recognizing the two lines of child custody cases but declining to resolve conflict holding that the apparent conflict between two subsections of the tax code renders the facial meaning of the statute ambiguous