711:
extortion", "involves use of explosives", or "otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another". The last part is known as the residual clause. The court determined that the residual clause was unconstitutionally vague because of the combination of two factors: (1) it focused on the ordinary case of a felony, rather than statutory elements or the nature of the convicted's actions, leaving significant uncertainty about how to assess the risk posed by a crime; and (2) the clause does not give an indication of how much risk is necessary to qualify as a violent felony. Johnson's case—the fifth U.S. Supreme Court case about the meaning of the residual clause—involved whether possession of a short-barrelled shotgun was a violent felony.
515:
the innocent by not providing fair warning. Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application. Third, but related, where a vague statute ‘abut(s) upon sensitive areas of basic First
Amendment freedoms,’ it ‘operates to inhibit the exercise of (those) freedoms.’ Uncertain meanings inevitably lead citizens to “steer far wider of the unlawful zone' . . . than if the boundaries of the forbidden areas were clearly marked.'
841:
693:, it was unconstitutionally vague to enforce the restrictions against "obscene", "vulgar", "profane", or "indecent" acts since any person may see different things as obscene, vulgar, profane, or indecent. This was also compounded by the fact that the FCC allowed some words such as "shit" and "fuck" permissible to utter or state in some, but unclear, circumstances; but this was only seen as an accessory to the aforementioned reason.
44:
371:
For example, criminal laws which do not state explicitly and definitely what conduct is punishable are void for vagueness. A statute is also void for vagueness if a legislature's delegation of authority to judges or administrators is so extensive that it could lead to arbitrary prosecutions. A law can also be "void for vagueness" if it imposes on First
Amendment freedom of speech, assembly, or religion.
490:
The void for vagueness doctrine requires that laws are so written that they explicitly and definitely state what conduct is punishable. The doctrine thus serves two purposes. First, all persons receive a fair notice of what is punishable and what is not. Second, it helps prevent arbitrary enforcement
365:
and unenforceable if it is too vague for the average citizen to understand. This is because constitutionally permissible activity may not be chilled because of a statute's vagueness (either because the statute is a penal statute with criminal or quasi-criminal civil penalties, or because the interest
558:
and objective criteria that specify the harm to be protected against are necessary to limit vagueness in criminal statutes (Compare page 9 of ). To satisfy the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, individuals are entitled to understand the scope and nature of statutes which might subject
543:
When a law does not specifically detail the procedure followed by officers or judges of the law. As a guard, a law must particularly detail what officers are to do, providing both for what they must do and what they must not do. Under the doctrine, judges must have a clear understanding of how they
485:
he terms of a penal statute must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties… and a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily
370:
by a court determining its constitutionality). There are several reasons a statute may be considered vague; in general, a statute might be void for vagueness when an average citizen cannot generally determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed.
514:
Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap
424:
in his "Commentaries on the
English Constitution," where he highlighted the necessity for laws to clearly define the rights to be observed and the wrongs to be avoided. Montesquieu, in his work "Spirit of the Laws," advocated for laws to be concise, simple, and free from vague expressions. These
637:
for unconstitutional vagueness; in restricting activities like "loafing", "strolling", or "wandering around from place to place", the law gave arbitrary power to the police and, since people could not reasonably know what sort of conduct is forbidden under the law, could potentially criminalize
710:
was unconstitutionally vague and a violation of due process. The residual clause provided for an enhanced prison sentence for people who had previously been convicted of 3 or more violent felonies, which was defined as "use of physical force against the person of another", "burglary, arson, or
396:, which establishes criminal liability for making/selling chemicals, which are "analogous" to known prohibited drugs, but fails to be sufficiently specific for the accused to know, whether an "analogous drug" is prohibited or not. According to this law, a sale of a bar of chocolate containing
675:
condition prohibiting a defendant from possessing "all forms of pornography, including legal adult pornography" was unconstitutionally vague because it posed a real danger that the prohibition on pornography might ultimately translate to a prohibition on whatever the officer personally found
664:'s abortion law which required that physicians dispose of fetal remains in a "humane and sanitary manner". "Humane" was judged to be unconstitutionally vague as a "definition of conduct subject to criminal prosecution"; the physician could not be certain whether or not his conduct was legal.
615:(Fla. 1971), ruled that the state's felony ban on sodomy was unconstitutionally vague because an "average person of common intelligence" could not reasonably know, without speculating, whether "abominable and detestable crime against nature" included oral sex or only anal sex.
565:(2010), it was held that a "penal statute must define the criminal offense (1) with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and (2) in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement."
374:
The "void for vagueness" doctrine does not apply to private law (that is, laws that govern rights and obligations as between private parties), only to laws that govern rights and obligations vis-a-vis the government. The doctrine also requires that to qualify as
491:
of the laws and arbitrary prosecutions. The void for vagueness doctrine developed because, "When
Congress does not set minimum guidelines to govern law enforcement, there is no limit to the conduct that can be criminalized."
63:
337:
91:
931:
643:
589:
446:
225:
528:
When a law does not specifically enumerate the practices that are either required or prohibited. In this case, the ordinary citizen does not know what the law requires. See also
936:
915:
656:
500:
471:
668:
1079:
585:
442:
205:
651:. The Court sided with the village, holding that in such a lawsuit the plaintiff must demonstrate that the law would be "impermissibly vague in all its applications".
647:(1982), the Supreme Court considered a pre-enforcement challenge to a municipal ordinance imposing licensing requirements and other restrictions on stores that sold
215:
330:
684:
535:
412:
The concept of vagueness in law, particularly in the context of the void-for-vagueness doctrine, has ancient roots. It is believed to originate from the
420:, who emphasized the importance of laws, especially penal laws, being "plainly and perspicuously penned." This sentiment was further developed by Sir
323:
185:
70:
720:(2018), the Supreme Court ruled that a statute defining certain "aggravated felonies" for immigration purposes, is unconstitutionally vague. Justice
175:
33:
195:
180:
154:
909:
159:
1069:
734:
466:
75:
1074:
689:(2012), the Supreme Court ruled that since the words "obscene", "vulgar", "profane", and "indecent", were not accurately defined by the
245:
149:
111:
1053:
1038:
963:
690:
450:
220:
58:
795:
Fels, Andrew, Voiding the
Federal Analogue Act (February 12, 2021). Nebraska Law Review, Vol. 100, No. 3, 2022, Available at SSRN:
596:. The doctrine prohibits criminal prosecution for laws where it is impossible to reasonably understand what conduct is prohibited.
992:
697:
106:
286:
142:
311:
240:
749:
619:
530:
1084:
577:
210:
593:
707:
561:
495:
744:
281:
235:
306:
200:
137:
486:
guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law.
940:
606:
504:
475:
416:
maxim, "Nulla crimen sine lege" (no crime without law). This principle was echoed by
English jurist Sir
739:
393:
96:
271:
190:
1089:
716:
672:
648:
630:
625:
546:
438:
421:
354:
296:
291:
230:
121:
897:
998:
1049:
1034:
1026:
947:
611:
461:
891:
842:"The Right-to-Honest-Services Doctrine – Enron's Final Victim: Pure Void-for-Vagueness in
367:
17:
524:
There are at least two ways a law might be attacked for being unconstitutionally vague:
943:
900: (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan) May 16, 2012).
677:
507:
478:
397:
1063:
919:
813:
774:
703:
351:
250:
116:
856:(3). Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School: 1289–1306
721:
43:
661:
581:
454:
453:. That is, vague laws unconstitutionally deprive people of their rights without
417:
401:
276:
101:
366:
invaded by the vague law is sufficiently fundamental to subject the statute to
576:
is a concept that is used to strike down certain laws and judicial actions in
301:
413:
460:
The following pronouncement of the void for vagueness doctrine was made by
800:
634:
555:
392:
An example of law, that has been criticized in the USA for vagueness is
358:
426:
425:
early thoughts undeniably influenced
American legal commentators and
980:
796:
913:, Florida Supreme Court, 17 December 1971, accessed 14 July 2011
724:, in a concurring opinion, stressed the dangers of vague laws.
777:. Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute
385:
State explicitly what it mandates, and what is enforceable.
932:
Hoffman
Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.
644:
Hoffman
Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.
657:
City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health
669:
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
1046:Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System
835:
833:
885:
883:
769:
767:
765:
437:The void for vagueness doctrine derives from the
633:cases where the court struck down laws against
512:
483:
960:Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health
331:
8:
544:are to approach and handle a case. See also
1044:Harr, J. Scott and Kären M. Hess. (2004).
1031:Constitutional Law Principles and Policies
976:United States of America v. Ray Donald Loy
338:
324:
29:
1080:United States criminal constitutional law
404:) can give rise to a criminal liability.
761:
263:
167:
129:
83:
50:
32:
801:http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3736304
706:ruled that the residual clause in the
600:Examples of unconstitutional vagueness
27:Concept in American constitutional law
559:them to criminal penalties. Thus, in
7:
735:Indeterminacy debate in legal theory
467:Connally v. General Construction Co.
686:FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc
660:(1983), struck down a provision of
537:FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc
840:Burrell, Lesley (3 January 2011).
25:
797:https://ssrn.com/abstract=3736304
850:Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
42:
775:"Vagueness doctrine definition"
388:Define potentially vague terms.
875:Connally v. General Const. Co.
638:innocuous everyday activities.
1:
312:Common good constitutionalism
812:Dynia, Philip (2023-09-19).
750:Rule according to higher law
620:Papachristou v. Jacksonville
578:United States federal courts
531:Coates v. City of Cincinnati
1070:Void for vagueness case law
654:The U.S. Supreme Court, in
496:Grayned v. City of Rockford
206:Right to keep and bear arms
1106:
1075:American legal terminology
877:, 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926)
594:United States Constitution
574:Unconstitutional vagueness
569:Unconstitutional vagueness
451:United States Constitution
216:Criminal procedural rights
18:Unconstitutional vagueness
844:Skilling v. United States
708:Armed Career Criminal Act
580:. It is derived from the
562:Skilling v. United States
1048:, Wadsworth Publishing,
994:Johnson v. United States
699:Johnson v. United States
287:Political process theory
983: (January 4, 2001).
745:Plain Language Movement
282:Substantive due process
818:The Free Speech Center
584:doctrine found in the
517:
488:
307:Strict constructionism
211:Right to trial by jury
201:Freedom of association
946: (1982), at 495,
607:Florida Supreme Court
590:Fourteenth Amendments
408:Historical background
1033:, Aspen Publishers,
740:Overbreadth doctrine
520:Specific application
394:Federal Analogue Act
256:Comprehensible rules
226:Freedom from slavery
186:Freedom of the press
130:Government structure
92:Separation of powers
36:of the United States
981:237 F3d 251
964:462 U.S. 416 (1983)
439:Due Process Clauses
272:Living Constitution
191:Freedom of assembly
176:Freedom of religion
1085:Due Process Clause
1027:Chemerinsky, Erwin
1013:, slip op. at 5-10
717:Sessions v. Dimaya
673:supervised release
649:drug paraphernalia
631:U.S. Supreme Court
626:Kolender v. Lawson
547:Kolender v. Lawson
462:Justice Sutherland
449:Amendments to the
422:William Blackstone
363:void for vagueness
355:constitutional law
292:Judicial restraint
251:Right to candidacy
138:Legislative branch
34:Constitutional law
911:Franklin v. State
612:Franklin v. State
433:Roots and purpose
348:
347:
196:Right to petition
181:Freedom of speech
168:Individual rights
122:Tiers of scrutiny
97:Individual rights
16:(Redirected from
1097:
1014:
1008:
1002:
990:
984:
978:
972:
966:
957:
951:
928:
922:
907:
901:
895:
887:
878:
872:
866:
865:
863:
861:
837:
828:
827:
825:
824:
809:
803:
793:
787:
786:
784:
782:
771:
629:(1983) were two
400:(an "analog" of
340:
333:
326:
236:Equal protection
221:Right to privacy
160:Local government
155:State government
143:Executive branch
46:
30:
21:
1105:
1104:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1060:
1059:
1023:
1018:
1017:
1009:
1005:
991:
987:
974:
973:
969:
958:
954:
929:
925:
918:8 July 2012 at
908:
904:
892:Hedges v. Obama
889:
888:
881:
873:
869:
859:
857:
839:
838:
831:
822:
820:
811:
810:
806:
794:
790:
780:
778:
773:
772:
763:
758:
731:
602:
571:
522:
435:
410:
368:strict scrutiny
344:
150:Judicial branch
76:Judicial review
35:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1103:
1101:
1093:
1092:
1087:
1082:
1077:
1072:
1062:
1061:
1058:
1057:
1042:
1022:
1019:
1016:
1015:
1003:
999:135 S.Ct. 2551
985:
967:
952:
923:
902:
879:
867:
829:
804:
788:
760:
759:
757:
754:
753:
752:
747:
742:
737:
730:
727:
726:
725:
712:
694:
681:
665:
652:
639:
616:
601:
598:
570:
567:
552:
551:
541:
521:
518:
510:, 391 (1972):
481:, 391 (1926):
434:
431:
409:
406:
398:phenethylamine
390:
389:
386:
381:, a law must:
378:constitutional
346:
345:
343:
342:
335:
328:
320:
317:
316:
315:
314:
309:
304:
299:
294:
289:
284:
279:
274:
266:
265:
261:
260:
259:
258:
253:
248:
243:
238:
233:
228:
223:
218:
213:
208:
203:
198:
193:
188:
183:
178:
170:
169:
165:
164:
163:
162:
157:
152:
146:
145:
140:
132:
131:
127:
126:
125:
124:
119:
114:
109:
104:
99:
94:
86:
85:
81:
80:
79:
78:
73:
67:
66:
61:
53:
52:
48:
47:
39:
38:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1102:
1091:
1088:
1086:
1083:
1081:
1078:
1076:
1073:
1071:
1068:
1067:
1065:
1055:
1054:0-534-62880-X
1051:
1047:
1043:
1040:
1039:0-7355-2428-9
1036:
1032:
1028:
1025:
1024:
1020:
1012:
1007:
1004:
1000:
996:
995:
989:
986:
982:
977:
971:
968:
965:
961:
956:
953:
949:
945:
942:
938:
934:
933:
927:
924:
921:
920:archive.today
917:
914:
912:
906:
903:
899:
894:
893:
886:
884:
880:
876:
871:
868:
855:
851:
847:
845:
836:
834:
830:
819:
815:
808:
805:
802:
798:
792:
789:
776:
770:
768:
766:
762:
755:
751:
748:
746:
743:
741:
738:
736:
733:
732:
728:
723:
719:
718:
713:
709:
705:
704:Supreme Court
701:
700:
695:
692:
688:
687:
682:
679:
674:
671:ruled that a
670:
666:
663:
659:
658:
653:
650:
646:
645:
640:
636:
632:
628:
627:
622:
621:
617:
614:
613:
608:
604:
603:
599:
597:
595:
591:
587:
583:
579:
575:
568:
566:
564:
563:
557:
549:
548:
542:
539:
538:
533:
532:
527:
526:
525:
519:
516:
511:
509:
506:
502:
498:
497:
492:
487:
482:
480:
477:
473:
469:
468:
463:
458:
456:
452:
448:
444:
440:
432:
430:
428:
423:
419:
415:
407:
405:
403:
399:
395:
387:
384:
383:
382:
380:
379:
372:
369:
364:
360:
356:
353:
341:
336:
334:
329:
327:
322:
321:
319:
318:
313:
310:
308:
305:
303:
300:
298:
295:
293:
290:
288:
285:
283:
280:
278:
275:
273:
270:
269:
268:
267:
262:
257:
254:
252:
249:
247:
246:Voting rights
244:
242:
239:
237:
234:
232:
229:
227:
224:
222:
219:
217:
214:
212:
209:
207:
204:
202:
199:
197:
194:
192:
189:
187:
184:
182:
179:
177:
174:
173:
172:
171:
166:
161:
158:
156:
153:
151:
148:
147:
144:
141:
139:
136:
135:
134:
133:
128:
123:
120:
118:
117:Equal footing
115:
113:
112:Republicanism
110:
108:
105:
103:
100:
98:
95:
93:
90:
89:
88:
87:
82:
77:
74:
72:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
57:
56:
55:
54:
49:
45:
41:
40:
37:
31:
19:
1045:
1030:
1010:
1006:
993:
988:
975:
970:
959:
955:
930:
926:
910:
905:
890:
874:
870:
858:. Retrieved
853:
849:
843:
821:. Retrieved
817:
807:
791:
779:. Retrieved
722:Neil Gorsuch
715:
702:(2015), the
698:
685:
655:
642:
624:
618:
610:
573:
572:
560:
553:
545:
536:
529:
523:
513:
494:
493:
489:
484:
465:
459:
436:
411:
391:
377:
376:
373:
362:
349:
255:
898:12-cv-00331
860:30 December
814:"Vagueness"
781:30 December
678:titillating
623:(1972) and
582:due process
534:(1971) and
455:due process
418:Edward Coke
402:amphetamine
297:Purposivism
277:Originalism
241:Citizenship
231:Due process
102:Rule of law
1064:Categories
1029:. (2002).
1021:References
823:2024-01-12
447:Fourteenth
302:Textualism
107:Federalism
84:Principles
64:Amendments
1090:Ambiguity
414:Roman law
948:Marshall
916:Archived
729:See also
635:vagrancy
556:scienter
352:American
59:Articles
51:Overview
1011:Johnson
592:to the
550:(1983).
540:(2012).
441:of the
427:jurists
359:statute
71:History
1052:
1037:
1001:(2015)
979:,
896:,
264:Theory
939:
756:Notes
662:Akron
609:, in
586:Fifth
554:Both
503:
474:
443:Fifth
1050:ISBN
1035:ISBN
950:, J.
941:U.S.
862:2012
783:2012
667:The
605:The
588:and
505:U.S.
476:U.S.
445:and
357:, a
944:489
937:455
799:or
714:In
696:In
691:FCC
683:In
641:In
508:104
501:408
479:385
472:269
464:in
361:is
350:In
1066::
997:,
962:,
935:,
882:^
854:44
852:.
848:.
832:^
816:.
764:^
499:,
470:,
457:.
429:.
1056:.
1041:.
864:.
846:"
826:.
785:.
680:.
339:e
332:t
325:v
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
