Schuchardt v. Sousa, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166949 (Idaho Dist. Ct. 2025)

The Idaho District Court rules that an antiloitering city ordinance is unconstitutionally vague and offers the following language in support.

“It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined.” Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108, 92 S. Ct. 2294, 33 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1972). The broad contours of this doctrine have been well-established for a century. See, e.g., Connally v. Gen. Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 46 S. Ct. 126, 70 L. Ed. 322 (1926). First, a person must receive fair notice of legal prohibitions. “[B]ecause we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly.” Grayned, 408 U.S. at 108. Second, a statute must provide explicit standards for enforcement. “A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application.” Id. Thus, a statute must define its prohibitions “with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357, 103 S. Ct. 1855, 75 L. Ed. 2d 903 (1983).

Within these broad parameters, however, there is debate and ambiguity. One area of confusion concerns a plaintiff’s standing to bring a facial challenge—typically disfavored—rather than disputing the law only as applied to his own conduct. In this regard, the Court concludes that Mr. Schuchardt may bring a facial challenge based on the potential for arbitrary enforcement but not lack of fair notice. On the merits, the Court finds that City Code 5-2-3(A)(2) is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to provide sufficient standards for law enforcement. The analysis of each issue is set out in detail below.

. . . .

In sum, Boise City Code § 5-2-3(A)(2) does not provide sufficient standards to prevent arbitrary enforcement. The ordinance fails to coherently define unlawful loitering and instead vests police with tremendous discretion to determine when an individual’s presence on private property becomes a crime. The vast sweep of the law contradicts basic principles of due process. For these reasons, the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague.”