Also known as: overinclusive classification · over-inclusive classifications · overinclusive classifications · overinclusiveness · overbreadth
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A classification that reaches more individuals or conduct than necessary to advance the government's objective. The classification is invalid when the overbreadth is substantial relative to the law's legitimate sweep and the challenger meets the burden of demonstrating that scope.
Orla O'Malley posts a political sign near a school criticizing local taxes. The city ordinance bans all signs within 500 feet of any school to prevent distractions. Orla shows the ordinance reaches numerous protected political messages unrelated to school activities. The court finds the classification substantially over-inclusive and invalid on its face.
Oswald Orozco operates a website with adult content accessible to adults. A federal statute bars transmission of any indecent material online to protect minors. Oswald demonstrates the statute covers vast amounts of protected adult speech with no feasible age-screening alternative. The classification sweeps too broadly and cannot stand.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Otis Olsen opens an adult theater in a commercial zone. A city ordinance confines all such theaters to industrial areas to reduce secondary effects. Olsen shows the rule also blocks protected non-adult performances in the same locations. The classification reaches far more speech than needed and fails.
Orson Ochoa erects a political billboard on private property. A city ban prohibits nearly all off-site billboards to improve aesthetics. Ochoa proves the rule eliminates many noncommercial messages that pose no aesthetic harm. The classification is substantially over-inclusive and unenforceable.
Owen Ortega runs a utility that wants to promote energy conservation. A commission order forbids all promotional advertising by utilities. Ortega shows the ban covers truthful speech that does not increase consumption. The classification extends beyond any legitimate regulatory goal.
Omar Olson coordinates independent expenditures supporting a candidate. A statute limits such spending by corporations and unions. Olson demonstrates the limit captures protected political speech far beyond any corruption concern. The classification is substantially over-inclusive and invalid.
The challenger must demonstrate that the classification prohibits a substantial amount of protected activity relative to its plainly legitimate sweep. The burden rests on the party attacking the law.
Supporting sources
No. A law remains enforceable against unprotected conduct unless the overbreadth is substantial. Courts permit enforcement even when some hypothetical applications would reach protected activity.
Supporting sources
The overbreadth standing doctrine does not apply to commercial speech restrictions. Challengers must show the law is unconstitutional as applied to their own speech rather than relying on facial overbreadth.
Supporting sources
…District Court in the present case, have held state laws unconstitutional, at least in part, because of vagueness or because of overbreadth and abridgment of rights. Abele v. Markle , 342 F. Supp. 800 (Conn. 1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-56; Abele v. Markle , 351 F. Supp. 224 (Conn. 1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-730;…