There is No First Amendment Overbreadth (But There are Vague First Amendment Doctrines); Prior Restraints Aren’t ‘Prior’; and ‘As Applied’ Challenges Seek Judicial Statutory Amendments
University of San Diego School of Law
August 12, 2010
Constitutional Commentary, Forthcoming
San Diego Legal Studies Paper No. 10-029
In this short paper I argue that there are no overbroad statutes, and that the worry about overbreadth is really a worry about the vagueness of some First Amendment doctrines. I further argue that there is nothing “prior” about prior restraints; the temporal worry about injunctions is due to the judicially-created collateral bar doctrine, and the temporal worry about licensing schemes is that of the delay occasioned by the license requirement. Finally, I argue that “as applied” constitutional analysis is an exercise in judicial statutory amendment. I conclude with an Appendix discussing two recent prominent articles that are inconsistent with some of my arguments.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 19
Keywords: prior restraint, overbreadth, as applied, facial invalidity
JEL Classification: K10, K39Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: August 14, 2010
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.625 seconds