Also known as: vagueness and overbreadth · overbreadth · vagueness doctrine
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional challenge asserting that a statute fails to provide adequate notice of prohibited conduct or reaches a substantial amount of protected activity relative to its legitimate applications.
Virgil Volpe circulated political flyers in a public park. City officials cited him under an ordinance banning all leafleting near government buildings. Volpe sued claiming facial invalidity. The court upheld enforcement against him because he could not demonstrate that the ordinance prohibited a substantial amount of protected speech beyond its core applications to safety hazards.
Viola Volkov sought an abortion after learning of fetal abnormalities. State law criminalized the procedure except to save the mother's life. She challenged the statute on its face. The court invalidated the law because its broad language reached constitutionally protected decisions without sufficient clarity or narrow tailoring.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Valentina Vasquez burned a cross on private property visible from a public street. The city charged her under an ordinance targeting symbols that arouse anger on the basis of race or religion. She raised a facial challenge. The court found the ordinance invalid because it criminalized expression that caused only offense rather than imminent violence.
Victor Vargas erected a political sign on his commercial property. The city enforced a total ban on off-site billboards. Vargas sued claiming the regulation was unconstitutionally broad. The court examined whether the measure suppressed more protected speech than necessary to advance traffic safety interests.
Veronica Villanueva operated a website with adult content accessible to minors. Federal law criminalized transmission of indecent material online without age screening. She brought a facial challenge. The court struck down the statute because it effectively barred adults from receiving protected speech without narrow tailoring.
Valerie Viera opened an adult theater in a commercial zone. The city enforced distance requirements from schools and residences. Viera challenged the rules as overbroad. The court sustained the ordinance because it targeted secondary effects rather than suppressing the content of protected expression.
The challenger must show that the law prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech relative to its plainly legitimate sweep. A statute that is not substantially overbroad remains enforceable against unprotected conduct.
No. Litigants challenging commercial speech rules must demonstrate that the law is unconstitutional as applied to their own speech rather than relying on facial overbreadth claims.
A litigant has standing to challenge a law restricting expressive activity as substantially overbroad on its face to prevent chilling of protected speech by others.
Broad rules targeting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice are not facially invalid and may discipline lawyers for clearly improper acts that undermine the judicial process.
A statute requiring credible and reliable identification from loiterers fails because it supplies no explicit standards for enforcement and invites arbitrary or discriminatory application.
…a declaratory judgment in state court. Pp. 129-166. 4. The Texas abortion laws, as they are written, are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Pp. 164-166. 5. The right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation. Pp.…