Chicago v. Morales

Supreme Court of the United States · 1999 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawDue ProcessVaguenessvaguenessdue processfacial challengearbitrary enforcementfair notice

Facts

Chicago enacted a Gang Congregation Ordinance making it a crime for a person to disobey a police order to disperse when an officer reasonably believed one of two or more persons in a public place was a criminal street gang member and the group was "loitering," defined as remaining in one place with no apparent purpose. The ordinance applied to gang members and nongang members alike and carried criminal penalties including fines and imprisonment. During about three years of enforcement, police issued over 89,000 dispersal orders and made over 42,000 arrests. The Illinois courts held the ordinance unconstitutional, and the Illinois Supreme Court concluded it was facially vague and an arbitrary restriction on personal liberties.

Issue

Whether Chicago's Gang Congregation Ordinance violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it was unconstitutionally vague on its face. More specifically, the question was whether the ordinance failed to give adequate notice of prohibited conduct and vested excessive discretion in police enforcement.

Rule

A criminal law is void for vagueness if it fails to provide ordinary people fair notice of the conduct it prohibits or if it authorizes or encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement by failing to establish minimal guidelines for law enforcement. When vagueness permeates a criminal law that contains no mens rea requirement and infringes constitutionally protected liberty, the law is subject to facial attack.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The city council of Dayton, Ohio enacts a misdemeanor ordinance making it unlawful for any person to remain in a public place with a suspected gang member "without any obvious reason." A police officer may order everyone present to leave, and anyone who refuses commits the offense.

A defendant facially challenges the ordinance under the Due Process Clause. What is the strongest argument that the challenge should succeed?

Explanation. A criminal law is void for vagueness if it fails to provide ordinary people fair notice of what conduct it prohibits or invites arbitrary enforcement. A standard like remaining in public "without any obvious reason" is materially like a prohibition based on no apparent purpose: citizens cannot know in advance when their conduct crosses the line, because the judgment turns on what seems obvious to an officer. The later dispersal order does not cure the lack of advance notice.