Also known as:vagueness tests · void for vagueness
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional doctrine under which a law is held invalid if its terms fail to give ordinary people fair notice of what conduct is prohibited or fail to supply explicit standards that constrain arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
Sources & Authorities· 4 primary sources
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Casebooks
How it applies
Common Examples
4
Attorney Speech Sanction Vacated
State bar counsel charged Violet Vang with violating a publicity rule after she told reporters that her client would present evidence of prosecutorial misconduct at trial. The disciplinary panel found the statement created a substantial likelihood of prejudice but could not identify which part of the rule the statement violated or why the safe-harbor clause for general descriptions did not apply. The court dismissed the charge because the rule left Vang without fair notice of the line between permissible and punishable speech.
Eminent Domain Ordinance Struck
The City of Norwood condemned Vincent Vale's commercial building under a statute allowing seizure of any property whose current use failed to meet an undefined standard of optimal community welfare. Vale challenged the ordinance, arguing that the vague criterion gave officials unchecked discretion to label any parcel blighted. The Ohio Supreme Court invalidated the provision because it supplied no objective benchmark that owners could consult before investing in their land.
City of Norwood v. Horney853 N.E.2d 1115 (Ohio 2006)
Design Review Denial Reversed
Vega Motors submitted building plans that complied with every numerical setback and height limit in the Issaquah code, yet the design commission rejected them for lacking sufficient visual harmony with surrounding structures. The commission members each applied their own subjective sense of appropriate aesthetics without reference to any codified standard. The court held the ordinance unconstitutionally vague because it left applicants unable to predict what design features would satisfy the commission.
Anderson v. City of Issaquah851 P.2d 744
Common-Law Extension Barred
Viola Volkov was convicted of murder after the state supreme court abolished the year-and-a-day rule that had previously barred homicide prosecutions when the victim survived more than a year. Volkov argued that applying the new common-law rule to her conduct violated due process because she had no notice that the limitation period had been eliminated. The United States Supreme Court upheld the conviction only after confirming that the change was foreseeable and did not render the statute vague.
Rogers v. Tennessee532 U.S. 451, 121 S.Ct. 1693, 149 L.Ed.2d 697 (2001)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
What two requirements must a law satisfy to survive a vagueness challenge?+
The law must give ordinary people fair notice of what conduct is prohibited and must supply explicit standards that prevent arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement by officials.
Does internal police guidance cure an otherwise vague ordinance?+
No. Unpublished enforcement guidelines cannot supply the fair notice or explicit standards that due process demands of the enacted text itself.
When does a vagueness challenge receive stricter scrutiny?+
Stricter review applies when the enactment threatens to inhibit the exercise of constitutionally protected rights such as speech. Economic regulations carrying only civil penalties receive less stringent review.
851 P.2d 744Property
…comply. Burien Bark Supply , 106 Wn.2d at 871; Grant Cy. v. Bohne , 89 Wn.2d 953, 955, 577 P.2d 138 (1978). The purpose of the void for vagueness doctrine is to limit arbitrary and discretionary enforcements of the law. Burien Bark Supply , 106 Wn.2d at 871. Looking first at the face of the building design sections of IMC…