Also known as: overbreadth · First Amendment overbreadth doctrine · overbreadth doctrine · overbreadth challenge
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional doctrine permitting facial invalidation of a statute regulating speech when the statute prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech relative to its plainly legitimate sweep. The challenger must demonstrate that the overbreadth is substantial. A statute that is not substantially overbroad remains enforceable against unprotected conduct.
Felicity French seeks to distribute political pamphlets in a city park but faces arrest under an ordinance that bans all leafleting to control litter. She sues, showing that the rule reaches peaceful advocacy and educational distribution far beyond any litter problem. The court finds the prohibition substantially overbroad and invalidates the ordinance on its face.
Finn Fletcher, a journalist, refuses a grand jury subpoena seeking sources for a story on organized crime. He argues the subpoena power chills investigative reporting protected by the First Amendment. The court rejects the facial overbreadth claim because the requirement applies to unprotected conduct and does not substantially burden protected speech.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Flagship Logistics, a corporation, wants to fund a documentary criticizing a political candidate. A federal statute bars such expenditures by corporations. The company brings a facial challenge claiming the rule sweeps in protected political speech. The court examines whether the prohibition reaches a substantial amount of protected expression beyond its legitimate anti-corruption aims.
Foster Forge operates an adult theater and challenges a zoning ordinance that restricts such venues to remote industrial zones. The company claims the rule burdens protected expression by limiting locations available for lawful performances. The court assesses whether the zoning measure prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech relative to its legitimate interest in preserving neighborhood character.
Flora Ford, an online content provider, faces prosecution under a federal law criminalizing transmission of indecent material to minors. She argues the statute effectively bans protected adult speech because no practical age-screening technology exists. The court evaluates whether the law reaches a substantial amount of protected expression beyond its goal of shielding children.
Fairview Manufacturing seeks to run issue advertisements without disclosing donors. A statute requires disclosure for ads mentioning candidates near elections. The company claims the rule chills protected political speech by deterring contributors. The court considers whether the disclosure mandate prohibits a substantial amount of protected expression relative to its legitimate transparency objectives.
The challenger must demonstrate that the statute prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech relative to its legitimate sweep.
Supporting sources
No. Litigants challenging commercial speech rules must show the law is unconstitutional as applied to their own speech rather than relying on facial overbreadth.
Supporting sources
Yes. A litigant has standing to challenge a law as substantially overbroad on its face even if the litigant's own expression might not be protected.
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;…