Also known as: vagueness · void for vagueness · void for vagueness doctrine
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional doctrine derived from the Due Process Clause that invalidates a law when its terms fail to give ordinary people fair notice of what conduct is prohibited or fail to supply explicit standards that prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement by officials.
Vincente Vukovic, a defense lawyer, told reporters that his client had been framed by overzealous prosecutors. The state bar charged him under a publicity rule barring statements creating a substantial likelihood of material prejudice while allowing statements about the general nature of the defense without elaboration. The court dismissed the charge because the safe-harbor language left lawyers without clear notice of what speech remained protected.
Veronica Villanueva formed a group that spent money on ads criticizing a sitting senator. Federal regulators fined the group under a statute limiting expenditures relative to a clearly identified candidate. The court invalidated the fine because the phrase relative to supplied no objective boundary between protected issue discussion and regulated advocacy.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Viktor Voronin bought a new car whose paint had been repaired before sale. A jury awarded him $4,000 in compensatory damages and $2 million in punitive damages. The court reduced the punitive award because the state guidepost of reprehensibility offered no concrete limit and invited arbitrary imposition of punishment.
Valerie Voss opened an adult movie theater in a commercial zone. City officials ordered closure under an ordinance restricting such theaters to locations more than one thousand feet from any residential area or school. The court upheld the ordinance because its distance formula supplied an objective, workable standard that avoided arbitrary enforcement.
Violet Vang sought to register the mark The Slants for her Asian-American rock band. The Patent Office refused registration under the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act. The court struck down the refusal because the clause left examiners without objective criteria for deciding which marks were disparaging and risked viewpoint discrimination.
Virgil Volpe published an editorial criticizing a political candidate. State law required the newspaper to print the candidate's reply at no charge. The court invalidated the statute because its command to print any reply created an open-ended obligation that chilled editorial judgment without clear limits.
The doctrine requires that a penal statute define the offense with sufficient definiteness so ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and that it supply explicit standards to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement by officials.
Supporting sources
Vagueness focuses on lack of fair notice and uncontrolled discretion. Overbreadth focuses on whether a statute sweeps in a substantial amount of protected speech even if the statute is clear.
Supporting sources
A law is especially vulnerable when it regulates conduct that often involves First Amendment activity, because vague terms create a chilling effect and increase the risk of selective enforcement against disfavored speakers.
Supporting sources
Yes. The doctrine can invalidate civil regulatory provisions and professional-discipline rules when they fail to give fair notice or invite arbitrary enforcement, although criminal statutes receive the most rigorous scrutiny.
Supporting sources
…conclusion makes it unnecessary for us to consider the additional challenge to the Texas statute asserted on grounds of vagueness. See United States v. Vuitch , 402 U.S., at 67-72. To summarize and to repeat: 1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a…