Legal Definitions - face of policy

In legal contexts, the term "facial" refers to something that is evident or apparent simply by looking at it, without needing external evidence or deeper investigation. It means that a characteristic, flaw, or requirement is clear "on the face of things" or "on its face."

• Example 1: A Contract with a Missing Term

  Imagine a written contract for the sale of a house that clearly states the purchase price but completely omits the closing date. A lawyer reviewing this document might say there is a facial defect because a crucial term is visibly absent from the contract itself.

  Explanation: The problem is apparent just by reading the contract; no outside information is needed to identify the missing closing date.

• Example 2: A Regulation Contradicting a Higher Law

  A city council passes a new ordinance that, in its written text, directly prohibits a type of speech explicitly protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Legal experts might describe this ordinance as being facially unconstitutional.

  Explanation: The unconstitutionality is evident from the language of the ordinance itself, without needing to see how it is applied in practice. Its very wording creates the conflict.

A facial attack is a specific type of legal challenge. It is an argument that a legal document—such as a complaint filed in a lawsuit, a statute, or a regulation—is legally insufficient or invalid based solely on what is written within the document itself. This challenge does not rely on external facts or evidence but rather on the inherent flaws or inadequacies apparent "on the face" of the document.

• Example 1: Challenging a Lawsuit Complaint

  A plaintiff files a lawsuit, but their written complaint fails to include essential details required by law to establish a valid claim. For instance, if they sue for breach of contract but do not allege that a contract actually existed, the defendant might file a motion to dismiss based on a facial attack.

  Explanation: The defendant is arguing that, even if everything the plaintiff says is true, the complaint itself is legally insufficient because it omits a necessary element for a valid claim. The flaw is in the complaint's own wording and structure.

• Example 2: Challenging a New Statute

  A state legislature passes a new law that, by its very wording, appears to discriminate against a protected group. An advocacy organization might launch a facial attack against this statute, arguing that the law is unconstitutional as written, regardless of how the state might intend to enforce it.

  Explanation: The challenge focuses on the inherent legal flaws in the statute's text, asserting that the language itself violates constitutional principles, not on how the law is applied in specific situations.

• Example 3: Challenging a Will

  A person dies, and their will is presented for probate. However, the will document clearly shows that it was only signed by one witness, when the law in that jurisdiction requires two witnesses for a will to be valid. An interested party could mount a facial attack on the will's validity.

  Explanation: The challenge is based on a deficiency that is immediately apparent from the will document itself—the lack of the legally required number of signatures—without needing to introduce external evidence about the will's creation or the deceased's intent.