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
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.
Digital USD Citation
Alexander, Larry, "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" (2011). Institute on Law and Philosophy Scholarship. 43.