exact standard in Vermont

2023See, e.g., United States v. Sup. Ct. of N.M., 839 F.3d 888, 917 (10th Cir. 2016) (noting debate over application of no-set-of-circumstances language to different types of facial challenges and concluding that to extent language applies it is better described as result of facial challenge than test for facial challenge); see also Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 449 (2008) (noting disagreement for no- set-of-circumstances language but agreement that First Amendment facial challenges fail where statute has “plainly legitimate sweep” (quotation omitted)).

2023See, e.g., United States v. Sup. Ct. of N.M., 839 F.3d 888, 917 (10th Cir. 2016) (noting debate over application of no-set-of-circumstances language to different types of facial challenges and concluding that to extent language applies it is better described as result of facial challenge than test for facial challenge); see also Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 449 (2008) (noting disagreement for no- set-of-circumstances language but agreement that First Amendment facial challenges fail where statute has “plainly legitimate sweep” (quotation omitted)).

1987See, e.g., Boston Edison Co. v. Boston Redevelopment Authority, 374 Mass. 37, 49 , 371 N.E.2d 728 , 739 *150 (1977) (“proper approach in considering the appropriate scope of review is to evaluate the nature of the action sought to be reviewed.”); In re Cieminski, 270 N.W.2d 321 , 325 (N.D. 1978) (“In determining the scope of review, consideration must be given to the particular responsibility and function of the reviewing authority over the basic subject matter, as well as the function and authority of the body whose action is reviewed.”).

1987See, e.g., Boston Edison Co. v. Boston Redevelopment Authority, 374 Mass. 37, 49 , 371 N.E.2d 728 , 739 *150 (1977) (“proper approach in considering the appropriate scope of review is to evaluate the nature of the action sought to be reviewed.”); In re Cieminski, 270 N.W.2d 321 , 325 (N.D. 1978) (“In determining the scope of review, consideration must be given to the particular responsibility and function of the reviewing authority over the basic subject matter, as well as the function and authority of the body whose action is reviewed.”).

1987See, e.g., Boston Edison Co. v. Boston Redevelopment Authority, 374 Mass. 37, 49 , 371 N.E.2d 728 , 739 *150 (1977) (“proper approach in considering the appropriate scope of review is to evaluate the nature of the action sought to be reviewed.”); In re Cieminski, 270 N.W.2d 321 , 325 (N.D. 1978) (“In determining the scope of review, consideration must be given to the particular responsibility and function of the reviewing authority over the basic subject matter, as well as the function and authority of the body whose action is reviewed.”).