Returning Subscriber?
Not a Subscriber to Litigation Pathfinder?
Get the full text of this legal issue, including links to cited primary law, along with unlimited access 1,000’s of other legal issues…and more!
Area of Law: | Constitutional Law, Litigation & Procedure |
Keywords: | Void for vagueness; Facial challenge; Ordinance |
Jurisdiction: | Federal |
Cited Cases: | None |
Cited Statutes: | None |
Date: | 12/01/2013 |
The circumstances in which an allegedly facially vague ordinance will not be enforced are limited. The Eleventh Circuit has held:
A facial challenge, as distinguished from an as-applied challenge, seeks to invalidate a statute or regulation itself. Generally, for a facial challenge to succeed in this context the challenger must establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the Act would be valid. Consequently, “[f]acial vagueness occurs when a statute is utterly devoid of a standard of conduct so that it simply has no core and cannot be validly applied to any conduct.” Conversely, if persons of reasonable intelligence “can derive a core meaning from a statute, then the enactment may validly be applied to conduct within that meaning and the possibility of a valid application necessarily precludes facial invalidity.”
Indigo Room Inc v. City of Fort Meyers 710 F.3d 1294, 1302 (11th Cir. 2013) TA l "Indigo Room Inc v. City of Fort Meyers 710 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2013)" s "Indigo Room Inc v. City of Fort Meyers (11th Cir. 2013)" c 1 (citations and some internal quotation marks omitted).
[…]
Subscribe to Litigation Pathfinder
To get the full-text of this Legal Memorandum ... and more!
(Month-to-month and annual subscriptions available)
Get the full text of this legal issue, including links to cited primary law, along with unlimited access 1,000’s of other legal issues…and more!