Also known as:void for vagueness principle · void for vagueness · vagueness doctrine
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional doctrine under the Due Process Clause that invalidates a penal or quasi-criminal law when it fails to give ordinary people fair notice of what conduct is prohibited or supplies insufficient standards to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement by officials.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Attorney Press Statement Sanction
Valentina Vasquez, a defense lawyer, told reporters that her client planned to present evidence of police misconduct at trial. The state bar charged her under a publicity rule allowing statements about the general nature of the defense but punishing those creating a substantial likelihood of prejudice. Because the safe-harbor language gave no clear line between permitted and forbidden elaboration, the disciplinary board could not determine whether her remarks crossed the line.
Loitering Identification Demand
Vito Villarreal walked along a city street at dusk when an officer stopped him and demanded credible and reliable identification plus an account of his presence. The statute supplied no definition of credible identification and left officers to decide case by case whether the response sufficed. Vito produced a valid driver's license yet was arrested when the officer deemed it insufficient.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Casebooks
Kolender v. Lawson461 U.S. 352, 103 S.Ct. 1855, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983)
Loyalty Oath Indeterminacy
Valerie Viera, a public employee, was required to swear an oath to 'promote respect for the flag and reverence for law and order.' The language supplied no concrete guidance on whether religious refusal to salute would violate the oath. Valerie could not determine in advance whether her conduct would expose her to dismissal or other sanctions.
Sit-In Trespass Expansion
Vivian Vaughn and others sat quietly inside a restaurant after ordering food. Police arrested them for trespass under a statute that courts later interpreted to cover remaining after an implied invitation ended. The expanded reading gave no prior warning that peaceful patrons could become trespassers simply by continuing to sit.
Bouie v. City of Columbia(1964) 378 U.S. 347, 84 S.Ct. 1697, 12 L.Ed.2d 894
School-Area Noise Citation
Violet Vang stood on a sidewalk near a school and spoke through a bullhorn during school hours. An ordinance banned any noise that disturbed the peace or good order of the school but supplied no decibel limit or distance standard. An officer issued a citation based solely on his subjective judgment that the volume was too high.
Grayned v. City of Rockford408 U.S. 104, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972)
Gang Loitering Dispersal Order
Vera Vargas stood with two acquaintances on a public sidewalk in a designated high-crime area. Officers ordered the group to disperse under an ordinance that prohibited remaining in one place with no apparent purpose. The ordinance gave no guidance on how long a person could remain or what conduct would demonstrate a sufficient purpose.
City of Chicago v. Morales527 U.S. 41, 119 S.Ct. 1849, 144 L.Ed.2d 67 (1999)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
What two requirements must a law satisfy to avoid being void for vagueness?+
A law must give ordinary people fair notice of what conduct is prohibited and must supply explicit standards that constrain law-enforcement discretion. Failure on either prong violates due process.
Does internal police training cure an otherwise vague ordinance?+
No. Unpublished enforcement guidelines cannot supply the fair notice that due process demands of the law itself. The ordinance text must contain the required clarity.
Why are vague loitering ordinances especially vulnerable under the vagueness doctrine?+
They often regulate conduct that borders on protected First Amendment activity and grant officers unchecked discretion to decide who has an apparent purpose. This combination creates a high risk of arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
Can a rule that reaches some clearly improper conduct still be struck down as vague?+
Yes. Even if the rule has a core of legitimate applications, it fails if its operative terms leave ordinary people guessing about the boundaries and give officers standardless discretion.
461 U.S. 352, 103 S. Ct. 1855, 75 L. Ed. 2d 903 (1983)Constitutional Law
…by failing to provide sufficiently definite guidelines for law enforcement officials. Pp. 355-361. (a) Although the void-for-vaguenessdoctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage…