Amendments Behind The Void-For-Vagueness Doctrine

The void-for-vagueness doctrine is derived from the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This doctrine requires that laws are written in a way that explicitly and definitely states what conduct is punishable. The doctrine aims to ensure that all persons receive fair notice of what is punishable and what is not, and it helps prevent arbitrary enforcement of laws and prosecutions. A statute may be deemed unconstitutionally vague if it is worded in a way that invites arbitrary enforcement or if it is so broad that it threatens constitutionally protected activity.

Explore related products

The Constitution of the United States of America, with the Bill of Rights and all of the Amendments; The Declaration of Independence; and the Articles of Confederation

$4.5 $4.5

Voice of the Void: Aesthetics of the Buddhist Mandala on the Basis of the Doctrine of Vak in Trika Shaivism

$63.1 $128

Miracle in the Void: Free Energy, Ufos and Other Scientific Revelations

$35

American Gospel: Christ Crucified

$3.59

Eternal Theater

$1.99

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99 $9.99

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments

The Fourteenth Amendment also contains a Due Process Clause, which states that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law". This amendment applies to state and local laws, and the Supreme Court has used it to invalidate vague state criminal laws.

The void-for-vagueness doctrine holds that laws must be written so explicitly and definitely that people can understand what conduct is punishable. This is to ensure that citizens are given fair warning and are not trapped by vague laws. The doctrine also prevents arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement by ensuring that laws provide explicit standards for those who apply them.

The Court has invalidated two kinds of laws as void for vagueness: laws that define criminal offences, and laws that fix the permissible sentences for criminal offences. In the former case, the Court has required that a penal statute define the offence with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

The void-for-vagueness doctrine can also be applied to civil cases, such as immigration removal cases.

Due Process Clause

The void-for-vagueness doctrine is derived from the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Due Process Clause states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. This clause applies to both criminal and civil cases.

The void-for-vagueness doctrine holds that a law must be sufficiently definite for a person of ordinary intelligence to understand and adhere to it. In other words, laws must explicitly state what conduct is prohibited and punishable. This is to ensure that citizens are given fair warning and can steer between lawful and unlawful conduct.

The Supreme Court has invalidated federal and state criminal statutes that lack sufficient definiteness or specificity as void for vagueness. For example, in Johnson v. United States (2015), the Supreme Court ruled that the residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act was unconstitutionally vague and a violation of due process. The residual clause provided for an enhanced prison sentence for individuals with prior convictions for violent felonies, defined as crimes that involved "use of physical force against the person of another", "burglary, arson, or extortion", "use of explosives", or "conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another". The Court found that the clause was unconstitutionally vague because it focused on the ordinary case of a felony rather than statutory elements or the nature of the convicted's actions, resulting in uncertainty about how to assess the risk posed by a crime and how much risk was necessary to qualify as a violent felony.

In another case, Kolender v. Lawson (1983), the Supreme Court struck down a law against vagrancy for unconstitutional vagueness. The law restricted activities like "loafing", "strolling", or "wandering around from place to place", but it did not reasonably explain what sort of conduct was forbidden, giving arbitrary power to the police.

The void-for-vagueness doctrine also applies to civil cases, particularly those involving deportation. In Sessions v. Dimaya (2018), the Court concluded that a statute allowing the deportation of any alien who committed a "crime of violence" was unconstitutionally vague.

Criminal offenses

The void-for-vagueness doctrine is derived from the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. It applies to laws that define criminal offenses and those that fix the permissible sentences for criminal offenses. The doctrine requires that laws are written so that they explicitly and definitely state what conduct is punishable.

For a statute to be considered unconstitutionally vague, it must be worded in a standardless way that invites arbitrary enforcement or so broadly that it threatens constitutionally protected activity. The Supreme Court has invalidated both federal and state criminal statutes that lack sufficient definiteness or specificity as void for vagueness. This may be because the statute fails to give adequate guidance to those who would be law-abiding, advise defendants of the nature of the offense, or guide courts in trying accused individuals.

In the context of criminal offenses, the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that penal statutes define the offense with sufficient clarity for ordinary people to understand what conduct is prohibited and to ensure that enforcement is not arbitrary or discriminatory. This is to ensure that individuals are aware of what acts or duties are required or restricted, and to prevent the chilling of constitutionally permissible activity.

The void-for-vagueness doctrine also applies to the analysis of statutes governing civil immigration removal cases. In Sessions v. Dimaya, the Court concluded that a statute allowing the deportation of any alien who committed a "crime of violence" was unconstitutionally vague.

The doctrine serves two main purposes: first, to ensure that all persons receive fair notice of what is punishable and what is not, and second, to prevent arbitrary enforcement of the laws and arbitrary prosecutions.

Explore related products

The Constitution of the United States and The Declaration of Independence

$1.99 $6.95

Teacher's Discovery 27 Amendments Skinny Poster

$10.99

The U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights with Amendments: Pocket Size (Annotated)

$7.49

Amendments to the United States Constitution

$19.99

Constitution of the United States (Books of American Wisdom)

$9.25 $9.95

The Constitution of the United States: And All Its Amendments

$6.97 $6.97

Civil removal cases

The void-for-vagueness doctrine is derived from the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This doctrine holds that vague laws are unconstitutional as they deprive people of their rights without due process. In the context of civil removal cases, the void-for-vagueness doctrine has been applied in cases involving immigration and deportation.

In Sessions v. Dimaya (2018), the Court concluded that a statute allowing the deportation of any alien who committed a "crime of violence" was unconstitutionally vague. The Court found that the statute lacked sufficient definiteness, which resulted in “grave uncertainty" about the scope and application of the law. This case extended the ruling in Johnson, where the Court found that the residual clause requiring courts to determine an "ordinary case" of a crime was unconstitutionally vague due to the difficulty in establishing consistent standards.

The void-for-vagueness doctrine in civil removal cases ensures that individuals receive fair notice of what conduct could lead to their removal or deportation. It also prevents arbitrary enforcement and discriminatory applications of the law. The doctrine requires that laws are written with sufficient clarity and explicitness so that individuals can understand the prohibited conduct and the potential consequences.

In addition to immigration and deportation cases, the void-for-vagueness doctrine has been applied in other civil contexts. For example, in McDonnell v. United States (2016), the Court narrowly interpreted the term "official act" to avoid vague prosecution of public officials under the Hobbs Act and federal honest-services fraud statute. The doctrine also applies to laws governing civil liberties, such as the First Amendment right to freedom of speech, ensuring that constitutionally protected activities are not chilled by vague statutes.

Overall, the void-for-vagueness doctrine in civil removal cases, as informed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, serves to protect individuals' rights and ensure fair and just application of the law.

First Amendment freedoms

The First Amendment to the US Constitution, passed by Congress on September 25, 1789, and ratified on December 15, 1791, protects several fundamental freedoms. It states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The First Amendment's protection of religious freedom ensures that the government cannot establish an official religion or prevent individuals from practising their chosen faith. This freedom also extends to those who do not follow any particular religious beliefs.

The freedom of speech and the press are also guaranteed by the First Amendment. This means that individuals are free to express their ideas and opinions without fear of government censorship or retaliation. Additionally, the press has the right to report and publish information and opinions, playing a crucial role in informing the public and holding those in power accountable.

The right to peaceably assemble is another key freedom protected by the First Amendment. This right allows individuals to gather and associate with others for various purposes, including protests and demonstrations, without interference or restriction from the government.

Lastly, the First Amendment guarantees the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. This means that individuals have the right to make their concerns known to those in power and seek changes or resolutions to issues that affect them. This right ensures that citizens can actively participate in the democratic process and hold their government accountable.

While the First Amendment guarantees these freedoms, they are not absolute and may be subject to certain limitations, such as when they infringe upon the rights of others or pose a clear and present danger. However, these freedoms form the foundation of a democratic society, empowering individuals to express themselves, practise their beliefs, and engage with their communities and government.

Regarding the void-for-vagueness doctrine, it appears to be primarily associated with the Fifth Amendment, with some references to the Fourteenth and possibly other amendments. The void-for-vagueness doctrine relates to the concept that laws must be written clearly and precisely to avoid arbitrary enforcement and to ensure that individuals can understand what conduct is prohibited. This doctrine has been applied to invalidate vague laws that fail to meet the standards of due process and threaten constitutionally protected rights.

Frequently asked questions