Comparative Law Review

Comparative Law Review

A comparative Study of the confrontation of the over breadth doctrine with the void for vagueness doctrine in the judicial processes of The United States Supreme Court

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors
Maryam Farrahi 1
Mehdi Hooshyar 2
Amir Iravanian 2
1 PH.D in Criminal law & Criminoloy, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Fars, Iran.
2 Assistant Professor, Faculty of law, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Fars, Iran.
10.22059/jcl.2021.322583.634230
Abstract
Federal courts are the chief guarantors of individual constitutional rights under the Federal Constitution. As such, they have a duty to protect citizens from state laws that criminalize or chill constitutionally protected activity (overbroad laws), or that subject citizens to unclear or arbitrary exercises of state power (vague laws). With these doctrines in mind, a federal court might view itself as the last bulwark of protection against overreaching state legislatures, and therefore decide that only complete invalidation will suffice. Thus, in this research, at first introduced and explained the nature and goals of the doctrine. Then, due to the connection and closeness of this void for vagueness doctrine, the opposition of the two in practice has been dealt with by focusing on the opinions of the US Supreme Court in a descriptive-analytical procedures. The results of this study indicate that; This doctrine is a good way for protecting fundamental rights in the field of freedom of expression enshrined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution .This doctrine investigates law in a facial review. A law may be both overbroad and ambiguous at the same time. If a comprehensive law is not overbroad, but at the same time provides the defendant with a fair notice that the conduct is criminal, the defendant cannot challenge that law under the void for vagueness doctrine. On the other hand, if the law lacks sufficient explicitness, it can be invalid according to the vagueness doctrine. States can interpret laws in a limited way to reduce the scope of that law in order to protect their laws from the scrutiny of the face of the over breadth doctrine. In examining whether a law is invalid in face, the Court should consider any restrictive interpretation proposed by a state court or executive agency.
Keywords
Over breadth doctrine
Void for vagueness doctrine
Due process
Chilling effect
Subjects

  1. الف) فارسی

    1. تقی‏زاده، جواد؛ نجابت‏خواه، مرتضی؛ فدایی رضوان (1395). صیانت از قانون اساسی توسط قضات محاکم با تأکید بر اصل یکصد و هفتادم قانون اساسی. مطالعات حقوقی دانشگاه شیراز، ش 1، بهار.
    2. فرحی، مریم و هوشیار، مهدی (1400). دکترین ابطال به واسطۀ ابهام در آینۀ آرای دیوان عالی ایالات متحدۀ امریکا و امکان‏سنجی آن در نظام کیفری ایران. مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی، ش 2، دی.
    3. لطفی، حس و سهرابلو، علی (1397). معیارها و اصول حاکم بر ترجیح امنیت بر حقوق و آزاد‏ها با مطالعه در رویۀ قضایی دیوان عالی امریکا. مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی، ش 2، پاییز و زمستان.

     

    ب) انگلیسی

    1. Binder, Guyora, Fissell, Brenner (2019). A Political Interpretation Of Vagueness Doctrine. University Of Illinois Law Review, No. 5.
    2. Fallon, Jr, Richard H (1991). Making Sense of Over breadth. The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 100.
    3. GANS, DAVID H (2005). Strategic Facial Challenges. Boston University Law Review, Vol. 85.
    4. Lockwood, Cristina D (2010). Defining indefiniteness: suggested revisions to the void for vagueness doctrine. Cardozo Public Law, Policy and Ethics Journal, 8.
    5. Rienzi, Mark L, Buck, Stuart (2002). Federal Courts, Overbreadth, and Vagueness: Guiding Principles for Constitution Challenges to Uninterpreted State Statutes. Utah Law Review, No. 2.
    6. Schneyer, David (2017). State Court Rewriting of Overbroad Statutes. Prize Winning Papers, 11.

     

    ج( پرونده‏ها

    1. Board of airport commissioners of the city of losangeles et al. V. Jews for jesus, inc., et al, 482 u.s. 569 (1987).
    2. Broadrick et al. V. Oklahoma et al, 413 u.s. 601 (1973).
    3. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).
    4. Commonwealth v. Jones, 28 N.E.3d 391 (Mass. 2015).
    5. Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 1051 (1991).
    6. Gooding, warden v. Wilson, 405 u.s. 518 (1972).
    7. Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967).
    8. Lazarus v. Faircloth, 301 F. Supp. 266, 273 (S.D. Fla. 1969).
    9. Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972).
    10. Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. (2017).
    11. State v. Johnson, 127 P.3d 707 (2006).
    12. State v. Stalder, 630 So.2d 1072 (Fla. 1994).
    13. Scott v. State, 788 S.E.2d 468 (Ga. 2016).
    14. Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940).
    15. United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008).
    16. United states v. Robert j. Stevens, 559 us. 460 (2010).
    17. Virginia v. Hicks, 539 U.S. 113 (2003).

     

    د( اینترنتی

    1. David L. Hudson, Jr. (2017). “over breadth-overview” /https://www.thefire.org.
    2. “The Doctrines of Substantial Overbreadth and Vagueness”, http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/html
Comparative Law Review
Volume 13, Issue 2 - Serial Number 26
Autumn & Winter 2022-2023
September 2022
Pages 695-714