Opinion ID: 377140
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Definitional Provisions

Text: 11 Plaintiffs first attack the definition of adult bookstore in the ordinance on the ground that it is vague and overbroad. 7 Under Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., supra, 427 U.S. at 58-61, 96 S.Ct. at 2446, 2447, plaintiffs have no standing to litigate this issue. 12 As we earlier noted, plaintiffs acknowledged that their bookstores are within the scope of the definition of adult bookstore found in the ordinance. The definition is thus sufficiently precise to leave plaintiffs in no doubt about whether their actions are covered. Because of the importance of First Amendment rights, however, litigants seeking to assert such rights are sometimes granted standing to challenge vague or overbroad laws even though they themselves are not in doubt as to whether their conduct is covered and are not engaged in conduct that could not properly be made the object of the restriction the law seeks to impose. 8 This doctrine of standing to assert vicariously the First Amendment interests of others is not, however, without limits. As in every case, plaintiffs must have a direct stake in the outcome in order to satisfy Article III case or controversy requirements. In addition, Young makes plain that the doctrine of vicarious standing will not apply if the provision challenged is readily subject to a narrowing construction by the state courts and is not so vague or overbroad that there exists a real and substantial possibility that its very existence . . . may cause persons not before the Court to refrain from engaging in constitutionally protected speech or expression. Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., supra, 427 U.S. at 60-61, 96 S.Ct. at 2447; see Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 216, 95 S.Ct. 2268, 2276, 45 L.Ed.2d 125 (1975); Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 615, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 2917, 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973). We believe the definition in question is readily subject to a narrowing construction. See Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., supra, 427 U.S. at 61, 96 S.Ct. at 2447. 9 The issue of whether the definition may have a real and substantial impact on the exercise of protected rights of expression was also settled by Young, in which similar definitions were held to pose no such threat. 10 Under Young, plaintiffs lack standing to attack the definition on either vagueness or overbreadth grounds.