 Stevens notes that the Court construed the challenge to the statute as one of facial validity; i.e., that the respondents asserted that the law was invalid in all or most cases it might be applied.This type of challenge, he noted, is very difficult to argue successfully, because the challenger must show that the prohibited action is constitutionally protected.Applied to this case, the Court required that it be demonstrated that the Fourteenth Amendment included a right to commit suicide, and that such right included the right to receive assistance in doing so.