10 CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N Opinion of STEVENS, J. ently. Ante, at 49 (quoting Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803)). We do not typically say what the law is not as a hedge against future judicial error. The possibil­ ity that later courts will misapply a constitutional provi­ sion does not give us a basis for pretermitting litigation relating to that provision.7 The majority suggests that a facial ruling is necessary because anything less would chill too much protected speech. See ante, at 9–10, 12, 16–20. In addition to beg­ ging the question what types of corporate spending are constitutionally protected and to what extent, this claim rests on the assertion that some significant number of corporations have been cowed into quiescence by FEC “ ‘censor[ship].’ ” Ante, at 18–19. That assertion is unsub­ stantiated, and it is hard to square with practical experi­ ence. It is particularly hard to square with the legal land­ scape following WRTL, which held that a corporate communication could be regulated under §203 only if it was “susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candi­ date.” 551 U. S., at 470 (opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.) (em­ phasis added). The whole point of this test was to make §203 as simple and speech-protective as possible. The Court does not explain how, in the span of a single election cycle, it has determined THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s project to be —————— 7 Also perplexing is the majority’s attempt to pass blame to the Gov­ ernment for its litigating position. By “hold[ing] out the possibility of ruling for Citizens United on a narrow ground yet refrain[ing] from adopting that position,” the majority says, the Government has caused “added uncertainty [that] demonstrates the necessity to address the question of statutory validity.” Ante, at 17. Our colleagues have apparently never heard of an alternative argument. Like every liti­ gant, the Government would prefer to win its case outright; failing that, it would prefer to lose on a narrow ground. The fact that there are numerous different ways this case could be decided, and that the Government acknowledges as much, does not demonstrate anything about the propriety of a facial ruling.