Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Connally v. General Construction Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawDue ProcessVoid for VaguenessFourteenth Amendmentdue process of lawvoid for vaguenesspenal statuteascertainable standard of guilt

Facts

Oklahoma statutes required contractors performing state work to pay workers not less than the current rate of per diem wages in the locality where the work was performed, and imposed fines or imprisonment for violations, with each day constituting a separate offense. General Construction Co., while building bridges under state contracts, paid various daily wages to laborers based on agreed eight-hour terms. The state Commissioner of Labor asserted that the company was underpaying some laborers because he believed the current local rate near Cleveland, Oklahoma, was $3.60 rather than $3.20 for certain workers. The company alleged that wages in the surrounding territory varied by employer, kind of work, and worker efficiency, making it impossible to determine with certainty either the current wage or the relevant locality, while state officials threatened criminal prosecutions carrying cumulative penalties.

Issue

Whether Oklahoma's requirement that contractors on state work pay not less than the current rate of per diem wages in the locality where the work is performed is so indefinite and uncertain, as a criminal statute, that it violates due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, the question was whether the phrases current rate of wages and locality provide an ascertainable standard of guilt.

Rule

The terms of a penal statute creating a new offense must be sufficiently explicit to inform those subject to it what conduct will render them liable to penalties. A statute violates due process if it forbids or requires conduct in terms so vague that persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, especially where it furnishes no definite or ascertainable standard of guilt.

🔒

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.

Nevada makes it a misdemeanor for any contractor on state school projects in Reno to pay laborers less than the going daily wage in the nearby area. The statute provides no formula for identifying either the wage or the area, and each day of violation is a separate offense.

If a contractor challenges the law under the Due Process Clause, what is the strongest argument for invalidating it?

Explanation. A penal statute must be sufficiently explicit to inform those subject to it what conduct will trigger penalties. Where the law uses terms like a wage level and geographic area that do not identify a definite amount or boundary, persons of common intelligence must guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. That lack of an ascertainable standard of guilt makes the statute unconstitutional. (Derived from Connally v. General Construction Co. (n.d.).)