Also known as: vagueness doctrine · overbreadth doctrine · vagueness and overbreadth · void for vagueness · overbreadth · First Amendment overbreadth · due process vagueness
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A due process doctrine that invalidates a law when its terms fail to provide fair notice of what conduct is prohibited or when the language creates a substantial risk of arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement by officials.
A First Amendment doctrine that invalidates a law regulating speech on its face when the law prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech judged in relation to the law's plainly legitimate sweep.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
A due process doctrine that invalidates a law when its terms fail to provide fair notice of what conduct is prohibited or when the language creates a substantial risk of arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement by officials.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Vivian Vaughn, a defense lawyer, told reporters that her client had cooperated with investigators. A disciplinary rule barred statements creating a substantial likelihood of prejudicing a proceeding but allowed statements about the general nature of the defense without clear limits. The bar brought charges against Vaughn. The rule left attorneys uncertain which political or factual comments would trigger discipline.
A rule becomes void when it fails to give fair notice of what statements are prohibited and creates a risk of discriminatory enforcement. A safe harbor for statements about the general nature of a defense without clear boundaries leaves attorneys uncertain which comments are punishable.
Supporting sources
Terms such as rogues, vagabonds, or persons wandering without lawful purpose fail to provide explicit standards. Such language creates unacceptable risks of arbitrary enforcement and chills protected conduct.
Supporting sources
A First Amendment doctrine that invalidates a law regulating speech on its face when the law prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech judged in relation to the law's plainly legitimate sweep.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Vincent Vale prepared a newsletter exposing coordination between a bank and federal regulators. A city ordinance banned all leafleting and conversations about financial matters inside a public arcade. Vale was cited while distributing copies on a bench. The ordinance reached every form of expression in a public space and suppressed far more protected speech than necessary to address pedestrian flow.
Valor Capital opened an adult theater in a commercial zone. A city ordinance restricted such theaters to industrial areas but defined the restricted category so broadly that it swept in many mainstream venues showing occasional mature content. The company challenged the ordinance after receiving a citation. The definition captured substantial protected expression beyond the city's stated interest in secondary effects.
The challenger must demonstrate that the law prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech relative to its legitimate sweep. A showing of some hypothetical unconstitutional applications is insufficient. Courts will uphold the law against unprotected conduct if substantial overbreadth is not proven.
Supporting sources
No. Challengers of commercial speech restrictions must show the law is unconstitutional as applied to their own speech rather than relying on facial overbreadth claims.
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;…
…to justify the limited effect upon First Amendment freedoms caused by the $1,000 contribution ceiling. (b) Appellants'
…Rights Act was limited to those cases in which constitutional violations were most likely (in order to reduce the possibility of overbreadth), the coverage under the Act would terminate "at the behest of States and political subdivisions in which the danger of substantial voting discrimination has not materialized during the…
…ante , at 387. Therefore, the Court's insistence on inventing its brand of First Amendment
…wake, it could not have been squared with the precedent’s reasoning and analysis. The Buckley Court did not invoke the overbreadth doctrine
Laws must supply explicit standards so that enforcement is not left to the unfettered discretion of officials. A requirement that loiterers provide credible and reliable identification was invalidated because it supplied no adequate guidelines.
Supporting sources
Vivid Media operated websites containing adult material accessible to adults. A federal statute criminalized transmission of indecent messages to minors without effective age screening. The company faced enforcement even though adults could not reliably access lawful content. The statute reached a substantial amount of protected adult speech relative to its goal of protecting minors.
Volta Electric displayed signs criticizing foreign governments near a consulate. A transit code banned signs critical of foreign governments within a designated zone while allowing other commercial and political signs. The company received a citation and lost access to a pickup area. The selective prohibition reached protected political speech far beyond any narrow regulatory interest.
Virgil Volpe burned a cross on private property as political protest. A city ordinance banned cross burning and other symbols that arouse anger on the basis of race or religion while leaving other provocative speech untouched. Volpe was prosecuted under the ordinance. The law singled out a subset of fighting words for prohibition based on the message expressed.