Also known as: overbreadth · overbreadth ground · overbroad · overbreadth doctrine · First Amendment overbreadth
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A First Amendment doctrine permitting a facial challenge to a statute when the law prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech judged against its plainly legitimate sweep.
Omar Olson, a street musician, receives a citation under a city rule barring all expressive conduct inside the public airport terminal. He sues, claiming the rule reaches far more protected activity than any security objective requires. The court invalidates the ordinance on its face because the prohibition sweeps in virtually every form of speech.
Omar Olson, a religious canvasser, is cited under a city rule barring all door-to-door solicitation without exception. He sues, claiming the rule reaches far more protected activity than any fraud-prevention objective requires. The court invalidates the ordinance on its face because the prohibition sweeps in virtually every form of speech.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Orson Ochoa, a political organizer, is arrested for distributing leaflets without first obtaining a permit required for every cause. He demonstrates that the rule covers religious advocacy and issue speech well beyond any fraud-prevention goal. The court holds the ordinance facially invalid because the challenger established substantial overbreadth.
Octavia Okonkwo is charged under a city rule that makes it unlawful to interrupt a police officer in any manner while on duty. She shows the ordinance criminalizes protected criticism and peaceful protest far beyond any legitimate order-maintenance interest. The court invalidates the measure on overbreadth grounds.
Oscar Ortiz, an attorney, faces discipline under a broad rule prohibiting any conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. He demonstrates that the standard reaches protected criticism of judges and court procedures well beyond core misconduct. The court rejects the facial challenge only after confirming the rule is not substantially overbroad.
Otto Osman, a homeowner, is cited for posting a political sign on his lawn under an ordinance banning nearly all residential signs except a few narrow categories. He shows the rule forecloses an important channel of expression relative to the city's stated interests. The court invalidates the ordinance because it is substantially overbroad.
The challenger must demonstrate that the statute prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech when measured against its plainly legitimate sweep. The burden rests on the party attacking the law.
Supporting sources
Yes. When a law is not substantially overbroad, it remains enforceable against unprotected conduct even though some hypothetical applications might touch protected speech.
Supporting sources
Overbreadth permits a facial attack based on the law's impact on third parties' protected speech, whereas an as-applied challenge focuses only on the statute's effect on the particular litigant before the court.
Supporting sources
No. A permit scheme is overbroad only when it covers a wide range of protected expression and lacks narrow tailoring to the government's asserted interest, such as preventing fraud.
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;…