City of Chicago v. Morales
Citation and Court
527 U.S. 41 (1999) — Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
Chicago enacted a gang loitering ordinance that required police to disperse any group of people standing in a public place when an officer reasonably believed one member was a gang member. Failure to disperse was a criminal offense. Morales and others challenged the ordinance as unconstitutionally vague.
Issue
Whether Chicago’s gang loitering ordinance is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Holding
Yes; the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague because it gave police excessive discretion to enforce it and failed to give citizens adequate notice of what conduct was prohibited.
Rule / Doctrine
A criminal statute is void for vagueness if it either (1) fails to give persons of ordinary intelligence fair notice that their conduct is forbidden, or (2) is so standardless that it authorizes or encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. The Chicago ordinance failed both tests: “loitering” with no purpose was not clearly defined, and the ordinance gave police unbounded discretion over who to arrest.
Significance
An important application of the void-for-vagueness doctrine to public order laws. Highlighted the constitutional limits on laws that delegate broad discretion to police, with particular relevance to civil liberties and equal protection concerns in gang enforcement contexts.