In this episode, Michael Mannheimer, Professor of Law at the Northern Kentucky University Chase College of Law, discusses his article “Vagueness as Impossibility,” forthcoming in the Texas Law Review. Prof. Mannheimer begins by giving an overview and history of the void for vagueness doctrine, focusing on the two traditional rationales for its existence: 1) requiring that statutes, both criminal and civil, give notice of what conduct is illegal, and 2) preventing the delegation of legislative power to those who should not wield it, such as prosecutors or police. He then describes and contrasts differing positions that Supreme Court justice has taken on the doctrine, particularly between Justices Thomas and Gorsuch. Prof. Mannheimer explains the difference between ambiguous and vague statutes, and highlights some of the problems with the current void for vagueness doctrine, including its underinclusivity, and its inherent contradictions. He closes by discussing a potential reframing of vagueness as impossibility, taking the doctrine in a much more practical direction. Mannheimer's scholarship is available on SSRN.

This episode was hosted by Maybell Romero, Assistant Professor of Law at Northern Illinois University College of Law. Prof. Romero is on Twitter at @maybellromero.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.