Also known as: overbreadth doctrine · overbreadth
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A First Amendment doctrine that allows a litigant to challenge a speech-restricting law on its face when the law prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech judged against 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.
Opal Okoro challenges a municipal rule that bars all leafleting near financial offices. She shows that the rule reaches some protected discussions but cannot prove that the protected applications substantially outnumber the rule's valid uses against disruptive conduct. The court therefore upholds the rule and enforces it against her distribution.
Olive Okafor sues to enjoin enforcement of a federal statute that criminalizes transmission of indecent material to minors without effective age screening. The statute reaches vast amounts of adult-to-adult protected speech with no feasible verification method. The court invalidates the law on its face.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Octavia Okonkwo attacks a city zoning rule that confines adult theaters to a limited industrial zone. The ordinance affects some protected expression but primarily targets secondary effects of the businesses. The court sustains the rule because the protected speech burden is not substantial relative to legitimate applications.
Oliver Okeke challenges a federal election statute that restricts certain corporate expenditures. The provision sweeps in some protected political speech but the court finds the overbreadth not substantial when measured against the statute's core anti-corruption goals. The court therefore enforces the statute against the challenged conduct.
Orson Ochoa contests a city ban on all off-site commercial billboards. The ordinance reaches protected noncommercial speech in addition to its target of commercial signs. The court holds the measure facially invalid because the protected speech burden is substantial relative to the ordinance's legitimate sweep.
Odilia Okamura sues under a federal statute that requires strict scrutiny of every law burdening religious exercise. The statute applies to countless state and local rules with no termination mechanism. The court invalidates the statute because its reach substantially exceeds any legitimate remedial scope.
The challenger must show that the law prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech relative to its plainly legitimate sweep. The burden rests on the challenger to demonstrate that the overbreadth qualifies as substantial.
No. Litigants challenging commercial speech regulations must demonstrate that the law is unconstitutional as applied to their own speech rather than relying on facial overbreadth.
A litigant has standing when the law restricts expressive activity and the litigant shows that the law is substantially overbroad on its face. This standing prevents chilling of protected speech by others.
…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;…