Void for Vagueness

Question 1

Where does the authority for the Void for Vagueness Doctrine come from?

Answer 1

The Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments

Question 2

What is the Void for Vagueness doctrine?

Answer 2

A law is invalid because it is not sufficiently clear.

Typically the doctrine applies to requirements or types of conduct in statutes that are unclear.

Question 3

Two purposes of the Void for Vagueness doctrine

Answer 3

1. Fair notice
2. Limiting police arrest and jury conviction discretion

Question 4

Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville (1972)

Answer 4

Facts: Vagrancy statute used to arrest several people: Interracial couple for “prowling by auto” (driving to dinner); two friends walking downtown for “loitering”; one man for reputation as a “common thief.”

Rule: Criminal laws must provide (1) fair notice and (2) must not give unfettered discretion to law enforcement

Holding: Vagrancy ordinance is void for vagueness - violates due process: lack of fair notice, overbroad police discretion (casts a wide net), criminalizes statuses.

Use for: lack of notice VFV

Question 5

Kolender v. Lawson (1983)

Answer 5

Facts: D, a black man with dreadlocks, arrested over 15 times (!!!) for walking. Ordinance requires to show “credible and reliable ID” → police decide what satisfies.

Rule: Criminal laws must define offenses (1) with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited, and (2) in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement - must establish minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement.

Holding: ID ordinance is void for vagueness. Convenient tool for discriminatory enforcement, no guidelines to guide police conduct.

Use for: Discriminatory enforcement VFV

Question 6

Sessions v Dimaya (2018)

Answer 6

Facts: Gov tries to deport noncitizen after 1d burglary conviction under statute which makes deportable anyone convicted of aggravated felony → defined as “crime of violence” → defined as crime that “by its nature” carries “substantial risk” of “physical force.” Courts categorically classified 1d burglary as crime of violence.

Rule: Laws cannot require courts to rely on ordinary cases (categorical rather than tethered to facts) from which courts create thresholds not specified in the law.

Holding: Statute is void for vagueness, since the statute requires courts not to look at the facts but instead consider whether an “ordinary” 1d burglary is a crime of violence. VFV applies even though this isn’t a criminal statute, because removal proceedings are intimately related to criminal process.

Use for: Separation of Powers VFV (judges can’t create crimes)

Question 7

List our three Void for Vagueness Cases

Answer 7

1. Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville (1972)
2. Kolender v. Lawson (1983)
3. Sessions v Dimaya (2018)