Laws must be clear to serve their intended purpose. A vague law fails to guide behavior in its intended direction because people cannot discern the parameters of the government’s prohibition. Those concerns are especially acute in the context of the First Amendment. Vague laws regulating free expression can have pernicious consequences—they can unnecessarily chill legitimate speech beyond the scope of the intended prohibition, and they can invite retaliation and arbitrary enforcement by government actors.

The Supreme Court recently considered these issues in United States v. Sineneng-Smith. This appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concerned the federal criminal prohibition against encouraging or inducing illegal immigration for commercial advantage or private financial gain. See 8 U.S.C. Section 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv). The Ninth Circuit held that the statute was facially unconstitutional—in other words, that it was so overbroad and vague that it could not be applied to anyone.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]