Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-7120_p86b.pdf
Page Number: 33

Cite as:  576 U. S. ____ (2015) 

15 

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment 

338–339,  343  (1952).  And  notwithstanding  its  earlier
conclusion that an Oklahoma law requiring state employ-
ees  and  contractors  to  be  paid  “ ‘not  less  than  the  current 
rate  of  per  diem  wages  in  the  locality  where  the  work  is 
performed’ ”  was  unconstitutionally  vague,  Connally, 
supra,  at  393,  the  Court  found  sufficiently  definite  a  fed-
eral  law  forbidding  radio  broadcasting  companies  from 
attempting to compel by threat or duress a licensee to hire 
“ ‘persons in excess of the number of employees needed by
such licensee to perform actual services,’ ” United States v. 
Petrillo, 332 U. S. 1, 3, 6–7 (1947).

In  more  recent  times,  the  Court’s  substantive  due  pro-
cess  jurisprudence  has  focused  on  abortions,  and  our
vagueness  doctrine  has  played  a  correspondingly  signifi-
cant  role.  In  fact,  our  vagueness  doctrine  served  as  the 
basis  for  the  first  draft  of  the  majority  opinion  in  Roe  v. 
Wade,  410  U. S.  113  (1973),  on  the  theory  that  laws  pro-
hibiting all abortions save for those done “for the purpose
of  saving  the  life  of  the  mother”  forced  abortionists  to
guess when this exception would apply on penalty of con-
viction.  See  B.  Schwartz,  The  Unpublished  Opinions  of 
the Burger Court 116–118 (1988) (reprinting first draft of 
Roe).  Roe,  of  course,  turned  out  as  a  substantive  due 
process opinion.  See 410 U. S., at 164.  But since then, the 
Court  has  repeatedly  deployed  the  vagueness  doctrine  to
nullify even mild regulations of the abortion industry.  See 
Akron  v.  Akron  Center  for  Reproductive  Health,  Inc.,  462 
U. S.  416,  451–452  (1983)  (nullifying  law  requiring  “ ‘that
the  remains  of  the  unborn  child  [be]  disposed  of  in  a  hu-
mane  and  sanitary  manner’ ”);  Colautti,  439  U. S.,  at  381 
(nullifying  law  mandating  abortionists  adhere  to  a  pre-
scribed  standard  of  care  if  “ there  is  ‘sufficient  reason  to 
believe that the fetus may be viable’ ”).6 

—————— 

6 All the while, however, the Court has rejected vagueness challenges
to laws punishing those on the other side of the abortion debate.  When