Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Hynes v. Mayor and Council of Oradell

Supreme Court of the United States · 1976 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentDue ProcessVaguenessDoor-to-door canvassingvoid for vaguenessnarrow specificityfair warning

Facts

The Borough of Oradell enacted Ordinance No. 598A, which exempted certain charitable, political, civic, and veterans' canvassers from a broader permit scheme but required them to notify the police department in writing 'for identification only' before going door to door. The ordinance covered persons canvassing for a 'recognized charitable cause,' a federal, state, county, or municipal political campaign or cause, representatives of borough civic groups and organizations, and certain veterans. Appellant Hynes, a state assemblyman, alleged he wanted to campaign for reelection in Oradell, and the other appellants alleged that they wished either to canvass door to door for political causes or to speak with candidates campaigning in the borough. They claimed the ordinance unconstitutionally restricted those activities.

Issue

Whether a municipal ordinance requiring advance written notice to the police department by persons wishing to canvass or solicit door to door for certain charitable or political causes violates the Fourteenth Amendment because it is impermissibly vague in a context affecting speech.

Rule

Even where a municipality may reasonably regulate door-to-door canvassing under its police power, a law in the First Amendment area is invalid if it is not drawn with narrow specificity and fails to give fair warning of what conduct it covers and what a person must do to comply. A law is unconstitutionally vague when people of common intelligence must guess at its meaning or when it fails to provide explicit standards for those who apply it.

🔒

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 Akron, Ohio adopts an ordinance requiring anyone who goes door to door on behalf of a "public interest effort" to file a written notice with the police department before canvassing. The ordinance does not define "public interest effort," but states that the notice is required only "for identification purposes."

A neighborhood volunteer wants to knock on doors urging support for a local clean-water referendum and challenges the ordinance before canvassing. Which is the strongest constitutional objection under the governing doctrine?

Explanation. In the First Amendment area, regulation must be drawn with narrow specificity and give fair warning of what conduct it covers. A term like "public interest effort" leaves coverage uncertain, forcing would-be canvassers to guess whether their speech is covered. The majority opinion allowed reasonable regulation of door-to-door canvassing in principle, but invalidated an ordinance where unclear categories failed to provide fair warning and explicit standards.