Also known as: void for vagueness doctrine · void-for-vagueness · vagueness doctrine · void for vagueness
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional doctrine based on the Due Process Clause that requires a criminal statute to state explicitly and definitely what acts are prohibited. The doctrine ensures fair warning to ordinary people and supplies explicit standards that constrain arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement by officials.
Vanessa Vinson, a defense lawyer, told reporters outside court that her client had been framed by a politically motivated prosecutor. The state bar invoked its publicity rule and disciplined her for creating a substantial likelihood of prejudice. The rule's vague safe-harbor clause for statements made without elaboration left Vinson without fair notice of what speech was forbidden, so the sanction was set aside.
Virgil Vaughn was arrested at 2 a.m. while walking through a residential neighborhood after finishing a late shift. Officers charged him under a city ordinance that criminalized rogues, vagabonds, and persons wandering without lawful purpose. Because the ordinance supplied no objective criteria for identifying prohibited conduct, Vaughn's conviction was reversed.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Violet Vidal, a convicted offender, was told by federal authorities that she must register under a statute whose scope depended on an agency rule that had not yet been written. She argued that the statute left her without clear notice of her obligations. The statute failed to supply explicit standards preventing arbitrary enforcement.
Valerie Viera and two friends stood talking on a Chicago sidewalk for twenty minutes. An officer ordered them to disperse under an ordinance that prohibited remaining in one place with no apparent purpose when a known gang member was present. Because the ordinance left officers free to decide what counted as an apparent purpose, the dispersal order was invalidated.
Vivian Velez was stopped by police while walking in a high-crime area and asked to produce credible and reliable identification. She could not satisfy the officers' subjective standard and was arrested under the statute. The Court held that the identification requirement failed to give adequate notice or enforcement guidelines and struck down the provision.
Violet Vang and other demonstrators marched in Birmingham after a state court issued an injunction whose terms failed to state explicitly what conduct was prohibited. They were convicted of criminal contempt for violating the injunction. Because the injunction supplied no explicit standards constraining arbitrary enforcement, the convictions were reversed.
The statute must give ordinary people fair notice of what conduct is prohibited and must supply explicit standards that prevent arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement by officials.
Supporting sources
Vague language in such statutes creates an unacceptable risk that protected expression will be chilled because speakers cannot predict what conduct will trigger enforcement.
Supporting sources
The doctrine originated in criminal law but has been applied to civil statutes that impose severe sanctions or affect fundamental rights, though courts tolerate somewhat less precision in purely civil regulatory schemes.
Supporting sources
Both doctrines promote fair notice and constrain government power, but lenity is a rule of statutory construction applied after a court finds ambiguity, whereas vagueness is a constitutional ground for invalidating the statute itself.
Supporting sources
…enforcement" of the law. Kolender v. Lawson , 461 U. S. 352, 357 (1983). Of these, "the more important aspect of the vagueness doctrine is . . . the requirement that a legislature establish minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement.' " Id. , at 358 (quoting Smith v. Goguen , 415 U. S. 566, 574-575 (1974)). I share…