A comparative Study of the confrontation of the over breadth doctrine with the void for vagueness doctrine in the judicial processes of The United States Supreme Court

Federal courts are the chief guarantors of individual constitutional rights under the Federal Constitution. As such, they have a duty to protect citizens from state laws that criminalize or chill constitutionally protected activity (overbroad laws), or that subject citizens to unclear or arbitrary exercises of state power (vague laws). With these doctrines in mind, a federal court might view itself as the last bulwark of protection against overreaching state legislatures, and therefore decide that only complete invalidation will suffice. Thus, in this research, at first introduced and explained the nature and goals of the doctrine. Then, due to the connection and closeness of this void for vagueness doctrine, the opposition of the two in practice has been dealt with by focusing on the opinions of the US Supreme Court in a descriptive-analytical procedures. The results of this study indicate that; This doctrine is a good way for protecting fundamental rights in the field of freedom of expression enshrined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution .This doctrine investigates law in a facial review. A law may be both overbroad and ambiguous at the same time. If a comprehensive law is not overbroad, but at the same time provides the defendant with a fair notice that the conduct is criminal, the defendant cannot challenge that law under the void for vagueness doctrine. On the other hand, if the law lacks sufficient explicitness, it can be invalid according to the vagueness doctrine. States can interpret laws in a limited way to reduce the scope of that law in order to protect their laws from the scrutiny of the face of the over breadth doctrine. In examining whether a law is invalid in face, the Court should consider any restrictive interpretation proposed by a state court or executive agency.