700:
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.
504:
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.'
830:
33:
682:, 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.
360:
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.
479:
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
354:
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
547:
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
532:
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
474:
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
359:
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.
503:
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
413:
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
626:
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
699:
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
385:, 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
664:
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
653:'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.
604:(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.
554:(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."
363:
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
480:
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."
517:
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
904:
484:
52:
326:
640:. 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".
636:(1982), the Supreme Court considered a pre-enforcement challenge to a municipal ordinance imposing licensing requirements and other restrictions on stores that sold
80:
920:
632:
578:
435:
214:
925:
645:
489:
460:
657:
401:
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
1068:
409:, who emphasized the importance of laws, especially penal laws, being "plainly and perspicuously penned." This sentiment was further developed by Sir
709:(2018), the Supreme Court ruled that a statute defining certain "aggravated felonies" for immigration purposes, is unconstitutionally vague. Justice
574:
431:
194:
204:
319:
898:
673:
524:
678:(2012), the Supreme Court ruled that since the words "obscene", "vulgar", "profane", and "indecent", were not accurately defined by the
312:
174:
59:
952:
784:
Fels, Andrew, Voiding the
Federal Analogue Act (February 12, 2021). Nebraska Law Review, Vol. 100, No. 3, 2022, Available at SSRN:
585:. The doctrine prohibits criminal prosecution for laws where it is impossible to reasonably understand what conduct is prohibited.
164:
22:
184:
169:
143:
148:
1058:
723:
455:
64:
189:
1063:
234:
138:
100:
1042:
1027:
679:
439:
209:
47:
981:
686:
95:
275:
131:
300:
229:
738:
608:
519:
1073:
566:
475:
guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law.
199:
85:
405:
maxim, "Nulla crimen sine lege" (no crime without law). This principle was echoed by
English jurist Sir
582:
696:
550:
733:
270:
224:
886:
987:
295:
126:
929:
595:
493:
464:
728:
382:
831:"The Right-to-Honest-Services Doctrine – Enron's Final Victim: Pure Void-for-Vagueness in
8:
260:
179:
513:
There are at least two ways a law might be attacked for being unconstitutionally vague:
1078:
932:
889: (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan) May 16, 2012).
705:
661:
637:
619:
614:
535:
496:
467:
427:
410:
343:
285:
280:
219:
110:
90:
1038:
1023:
1015:
936:
802:
763:
600:
450:
845:(3). Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School: 1289–1306
880:
356:
442:. That is, vague laws unconstitutionally deprive people of their rights without
666:
386:
355:
invaded by the vague law is sufficiently fundamental to subject the statute to
565:
is a concept that is used to strike down certain laws and judicial actions in
1052:
908:
692:
340:
239:
105:
710:
449:
The following pronouncement of the void for vagueness doctrine was made by
789:
650:
570:
443:
406:
390:
265:
381:
An example of law, that has been criticized in the USA for vagueness is
290:
414:
early thoughts undeniably influenced
American legal commentators and
402:
32:
969:
785:
623:
544:
347:
902:, Florida Supreme Court, 17 December 1971, accessed 14 July 2011
415:
713:, in a concurring opinion, stressed the dangers of vague laws.
766:. Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute
374:
State explicitly what it mandates, and what is enforceable.
588:
921:
Hoffman
Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.
633:
Hoffman
Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.
646:
City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health
658:
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
1035:Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System
824:
822:
874:
872:
758:
756:
754:
426:The void for vagueness doctrine derives from the
1050:
819:
622:cases where the court struck down laws against
913:
869:
751:
949:Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health
557:
320:
533:are to approach and handle a case. See also
1033:Harr, J. Scott and Kären M. Hess. (2004).
1020:Constitutional Law Principles and Policies
965:United States of America v. Ray Donald Loy
327:
313:
1069:United States criminal constitutional law
393:) can give rise to a criminal liability.
396:
828:
508:
1051:
790:http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3736304
695:ruled that the residual clause in the
589:Examples of unconstitutional vagueness
16:Concept in American constitutional law
800:
548:them to criminal penalties. Thus, in
724:Indeterminacy debate in legal theory
456:Connally v. General Construction Co.
421:
675:FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc
649:(1983), struck down a provision of
526:FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc
13:
829:Burrell, Lesley (3 January 2011).
14:
1090:
786:https://ssrn.com/abstract=3736304
839:Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review
31:
993:
975:
957:
764:"Vagueness doctrine definition"
377:Define potentially vague terms.
942:
892:
864:Connally v. General Const. Co.
857:
794:
778:
627:innocuous everyday activities.
1:
1009:
301:Common good constitutionalism
801:Dynia, Philip (2023-09-19).
739:Rule according to higher law
609:Papachristou v. Jacksonville
567:United States federal courts
520:Coates v. City of Cincinnati
7:
1059:Void for vagueness case law
717:
643:The U.S. Supreme Court, in
485:Grayned v. City of Rockford
195:Right to keep and bear arms
10:
1095:
1064:American legal terminology
866:, 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926)
583:United States Constitution
563:Unconstitutional vagueness
558:Unconstitutional vagueness
440:United States Constitution
205:Criminal procedural rights
833:Skilling v. United States
697:Armed Career Criminal Act
569:. It is derived from the
551:Skilling v. United States
1037:, Wadsworth Publishing,
983:Johnson v. United States
744:
688:Johnson v. United States
276:Political process theory
972: (January 4, 2001).
734:Plain Language Movement
271:Substantive due process
807:The Free Speech Center
573:doctrine found in the
506:
477:
296:Strict constructionism
200:Right to trial by jury
190:Freedom of association
935: (1982), at 495,
596:Florida Supreme Court
579:Fourteenth Amendments
501:
472:
397:Historical background
1022:, Aspen Publishers,
729:Overbreadth doctrine
509:Specific application
383:Federal Analogue Act
245:Comprehensible rules
215:Freedom from slavery
175:Freedom of the press
119:Government structure
81:Separation of powers
25:of the United States
970:237 F3d 251
953:462 U.S. 416 (1983)
428:Due Process Clauses
261:Living Constitution
180:Freedom of assembly
165:Freedom of religion
1074:Due Process Clause
1016:Chemerinsky, Erwin
1002:, slip op. at 5-10
706:Sessions v. Dimaya
662:supervised release
638:drug paraphernalia
620:U.S. Supreme Court
615:Kolender v. Lawson
536:Kolender v. Lawson
451:Justice Sutherland
438:Amendments to the
411:William Blackstone
352:void for vagueness
344:constitutional law
281:Judicial restraint
240:Right to candidacy
127:Legislative branch
23:Constitutional law
900:Franklin v. State
601:Franklin v. State
422:Roots and purpose
337:
336:
185:Right to petition
170:Freedom of speech
157:Individual rights
111:Tiers of scrutiny
86:Individual rights
1086:
1003:
997:
991:
979:
973:
967:
961:
955:
946:
940:
917:
911:
896:
890:
884:
876:
867:
861:
855:
854:
852:
850:
826:
817:
816:
814:
813:
798:
792:
782:
776:
775:
773:
771:
760:
618:(1983) were two
389:(an "analog" of
329:
322:
315:
225:Equal protection
210:Right to privacy
149:Local government
144:State government
132:Executive branch
35:
19:
18:
1094:
1093:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1049:
1048:
1012:
1007:
1006:
998:
994:
980:
976:
963:
962:
958:
947:
943:
918:
914:
907:8 July 2012 at
897:
893:
881:Hedges v. Obama
878:
877:
870:
862:
858:
848:
846:
827:
820:
811:
809:
799:
795:
783:
779:
769:
767:
762:
761:
752:
747:
720:
591:
560:
511:
424:
399:
357:strict scrutiny
333:
139:Judicial branch
65:Judicial review
24:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1092:
1082:
1081:
1076:
1071:
1066:
1061:
1047:
1046:
1031:
1011:
1008:
1005:
1004:
992:
988:135 S.Ct. 2551
974:
956:
941:
912:
891:
868:
856:
818:
793:
777:
749:
748:
746:
743:
742:
741:
736:
731:
726:
719:
716:
715:
714:
701:
683:
670:
654:
641:
628:
605:
590:
587:
559:
556:
541:
540:
530:
510:
507:
499:, 391 (1972):
470:, 391 (1926):
423:
420:
398:
395:
387:phenethylamine
379:
378:
375:
370:, a law must:
367:constitutional
335:
334:
332:
331:
324:
317:
309:
306:
305:
304:
303:
298:
293:
288:
283:
278:
273:
268:
263:
255:
254:
250:
249:
248:
247:
242:
237:
232:
227:
222:
217:
212:
207:
202:
197:
192:
187:
182:
177:
172:
167:
159:
158:
154:
153:
152:
151:
146:
141:
135:
134:
129:
121:
120:
116:
115:
114:
113:
108:
103:
98:
93:
88:
83:
75:
74:
70:
69:
68:
67:
62:
56:
55:
50:
42:
41:
37:
36:
28:
27:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1091:
1080:
1077:
1075:
1072:
1070:
1067:
1065:
1062:
1060:
1057:
1056:
1054:
1044:
1043:0-534-62880-X
1040:
1036:
1032:
1029:
1028:0-7355-2428-9
1025:
1021:
1017:
1014:
1013:
1001:
996:
989:
985:
984:
978:
971:
966:
960:
954:
950:
945:
938:
934:
931:
927:
923:
922:
916:
910:
909:archive.today
906:
903:
901:
895:
888:
883:
882:
875:
873:
865:
860:
844:
840:
836:
834:
825:
823:
808:
804:
797:
791:
787:
781:
765:
759:
757:
755:
750:
740:
737:
735:
732:
730:
727:
725:
722:
721:
712:
708:
707:
702:
698:
694:
693:Supreme Court
690:
689:
684:
681:
677:
676:
671:
668:
663:
660:ruled that a
659:
655:
652:
648:
647:
642:
639:
635:
634:
629:
625:
621:
617:
616:
611:
610:
606:
603:
602:
597:
593:
592:
586:
584:
580:
576:
572:
568:
564:
555:
553:
552:
546:
538:
537:
531:
528:
527:
522:
521:
516:
515:
514:
505:
500:
498:
495:
491:
487:
486:
481:
476:
471:
469:
466:
462:
458:
457:
452:
447:
445:
441:
437:
433:
429:
419:
417:
412:
408:
404:
394:
392:
388:
384:
376:
373:
372:
371:
369:
368:
361:
358:
353:
349:
345:
342:
330:
325:
323:
318:
316:
311:
310:
308:
307:
302:
299:
297:
294:
292:
289:
287:
284:
282:
279:
277:
274:
272:
269:
267:
264:
262:
259:
258:
257:
256:
252:
251:
246:
243:
241:
238:
236:
235:Voting rights
233:
231:
228:
226:
223:
221:
218:
216:
213:
211:
208:
206:
203:
201:
198:
196:
193:
191:
188:
186:
183:
181:
178:
176:
173:
171:
168:
166:
163:
162:
161:
160:
156:
155:
150:
147:
145:
142:
140:
137:
136:
133:
130:
128:
125:
124:
123:
122:
118:
117:
112:
109:
107:
106:Equal footing
104:
102:
101:Republicanism
99:
97:
94:
92:
89:
87:
84:
82:
79:
78:
77:
76:
72:
71:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
54:
51:
49:
46:
45:
44:
43:
39:
38:
34:
30:
29:
26:
21:
20:
1034:
1019:
999:
995:
982:
977:
964:
959:
948:
944:
919:
915:
899:
894:
879:
863:
859:
847:. Retrieved
842:
838:
832:
810:. Retrieved
806:
796:
780:
768:. Retrieved
711:Neil Gorsuch
704:
691:(2015), the
687:
674:
644:
631:
613:
607:
599:
562:
561:
549:
542:
534:
525:
518:
512:
502:
483:
482:
478:
473:
454:
448:
425:
400:
380:
366:
365:
362:
351:
338:
244:
887:12-cv-00331
849:30 December
803:"Vagueness"
770:30 December
667:titillating
612:(1972) and
571:due process
523:(1971) and
444:due process
407:Edward Coke
391:amphetamine
286:Purposivism
266:Originalism
230:Citizenship
220:Due process
91:Rule of law
1053:Categories
1018:. (2002).
1010:References
812:2024-01-12
436:Fourteenth
291:Textualism
96:Federalism
73:Principles
53:Amendments
1079:Ambiguity
403:Roman law
937:Marshall
905:Archived
718:See also
624:vagrancy
545:scienter
341:American
48:Articles
40:Overview
1000:Johnson
581:to the
539:(1983).
529:(2012).
430:of the
416:jurists
348:statute
60:History
1041:
1026:
990:(2015)
968:,
885:,
253:Theory
928:
745:Notes
651:Akron
598:, in
575:Fifth
543:Both
492:
463:
432:Fifth
1039:ISBN
1024:ISBN
939:, J.
930:U.S.
851:2012
772:2012
656:The
594:The
577:and
494:U.S.
465:U.S.
434:and
346:, a
933:489
926:455
788:or
703:In
685:In
680:FCC
672:In
630:In
497:104
490:408
468:385
461:269
453:in
350:is
339:In
1055::
986:,
951:,
924:,
871:^
843:44
841:.
837:.
821:^
805:.
753:^
488:,
459:,
446:.
418:.
1045:.
1030:.
853:.
835:"
815:.
774:.
669:.
328:e
321:t
314:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
