Page:United States Reports 502 OCT. TERM 1991.pdf/346

 502us1$15I 08-21-96 15:27:06 PAGES OPINPGT

188

INS v. NATIONAL CENTER FOR IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS, INC. Opinion of the Court

ruled, a bond condition must relate either to securing the alien’s appearance at a subsequent hearing or to protecting the Nation from danger posed by active subversives. A no-employment condition was not related to either of these purposes. Id., at 1358–1372. Second, the Court of Appeals concluded, bond conditions may only be imposed on an individualized basis and therefore the “blanket rule” promulgated by the Attorney General was invalid. Id., at 1373–1374. We granted certiorari, 499 U. S. 946 (1991), and now reverse. II It is appropriate that we preface our analysis by noting the narrowness of the question before us: We must decide whether the regulation on its face is invalid as inconsistent with the Attorney General’s statutory authority. We first observe that the plaintiffs framed their challenge to the regulation as a facial challenge. See App. 16–27. We recognize that it is possible that the no-work condition may be improperly imposed on some aliens. That the regulation may be invalid as applied in such cases, however, does not mean that the regulation is facially invalid because it is without statutory authority. Cf. American Hospital Assn. v. NLRB, 499 U. S. 606, 619 (1991); Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn., 489 U. S. 602, 632–633, n. 10 (1989). In this case, we need not and do not address such “as-applied” challenges to the regulation. We also note that, in invalidating the contested regulation, the Court of Appeals relied solely on statutory grounds, and did not reach the plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge. See 913 F. 2d, at 1358, n. 8. Accordingly, only the plaintiffs’ statutory challenge is before us and we resolve none of the constitutional claims raised by the plaintiffs’ initial complaint.