Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.

HOFFMAN ESTATES v. FLIPSIDE, HOFFMAN ESTATES 489

Syllabus

No. 80-1681. Argued December 9, 1981-Decided March 3, 1982

An ordinance of appellant village requires a business to obtain a license if it sells any items that are "designed or marketed for use with illegal canna- bis or drugs." Guidelines define the items (such as "roach clips," which are used to smoke cannabis, "pipes," and "paraphernalia"), the sale of which is required to be licensed. Appellee, which sold a variety of mer- chandise in its store, including "roach clips" and specially designed pipes used to smoke marihuana, upon being notified that it was in possible vi- olation of the ordinance, brought suit in Federal District Court, claiming that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and re- questing injunctive and declaratory relief and damages. The District Court upheld the ordinance and awarded judgment to the village defend- ants. The Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague on its face.

Held: The ordinance is not facially overbroad or vague but is reasonably

clear in its application to appellee. Pp. 494-505.

(a) In a facial challenge to the overbreadth and vagueness of an enact- ment, a court must first determine whether the enactment reaches a If it does not, substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct. the overbreadth challenge must fail. The court should then examine the facial vagueness challenge and should uphold such challenge only if the enactment is impermissibly vague in all of its applications. Pp. 494-495. (b) The ordinance here dces not violate appellee's First Amendment rights nor is it overbroad because it inhibits such rights of other parties.

The ordinance does not restrict speech as such but simply regulates the commercial marketing of items that the labels reveal may be used for an illicit purpose and thus does not embrace noncommercial speech. With respect to any commercial speech interest implicated, the ordinance's re- striction on the manner of marketing does not appreciably limit appel- lee's communication of information, except to the extent it is directed at commercial activity promoting or encouraging illegal drug use, an activ- ity which, if deemed "speech," is speech proposing an illegal transaction It is irrelevant and thus subject to government regulation or ban. whether the ordinance has an overbroad scope encompassing other per- sons' commercial speech, since the overbreadth doctrine does not apply to commercial speech. Pp. 495-497.

Syllabus

(c) With respect to the facial vagueness challenge, appellee has not shown that the ordinance is impermissibly vague in all of its applications.

The ordinance's language "designed ... for use" is not unconstitutionally vague on its face, since it is clear that such standard encompasses at least an item that is principally used with illegal drugs by virtue of its objective features, i. e., features designed by the manufacturer. Thus, the "designed for use" standard is sufficiently clear to cover at least some of the items that appellee sold, such as "roach clips" and the specially designed pipes. As to the "marketed for use" standard, the guidelines refer to the display of paraphernalia and to the proximity of covered items to otherwise uncovered items, and thus such standard requires scienter on the part of the retailer. Under this test, appellee had ample warning that its marketing activities required a license, and by display- ing a certain magazine and certain books dealing with illegal drugs physi- cally close to pipes and colored rolling paper, it was in clear violation of the guidelines, as it was in selling "roach clips." Pp. 499-503.

(d) The ordinance's language is sufficiently clear that the speculative danger of arbitrary enforcement does not render it void for vagueness in a pre-enforcement facial challenge. Pp. 503-504.

639 F. 2d 373, reversed and remanded.

MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER,

JJ., joined. WHITE, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post,

p. 507.

STEVENS, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Richard N. Williams argued the cause and filed briefs for appellants.

Michael L. Pritzker argued the cause and filed a brief for appellee. *

*Ronald A. Zumbrun and John H. Findley filed a brief for Community Action Against Drug Abuse as amicus curiae urging reversal.

Charles A. Trost filed a brief for American Businesses for Constitutional

Rights as amicus curiae urging affirmance.

Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the State of Arkansas et al. by Steve Clark, Attorney General of Arkansas, J. D. MacFarlane, Attorney Gen- eral of Colorado, Carl R. Ajello, Attorney General of Connecticut, Richard

S. Gebelein, Attorney General of Delaware, Jim Smith, Attorney General

of Florida, and Mitchell D. Franks, David H. Leroy, Attorney General of Idaho, Linley E. Pearson, Attorney General of Indiana, Robert T.

HOFFMAN ESTATES v. FLIPSIDE, HOFFMAN ESTATES 491 489

Opinion of the Court JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents a pre-enforcement facial challenge to a drug paraphernalia ordinance on the ground that it is un- constitutionally vague and overbroad. The ordinance in question requires a business to obtain a license if it sells any items that are "designed or marketed for use with illegal can- nabis or drugs." Village of Hoffman Estates Ordinance No. 969-1978. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sev- enth Circuit held that the ordinance is vague on its face.

639

F. 2d 373 (1981). We noted probable jurisdiction, 452 U. S.

904 (1981), and now reverse.

For more than three years prior to May 1, 1978, appellee The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. (Flipside), sold a variety of merchandise, including phonographic records, smoking ac- cessories, novelty devices, and jewelry, in its store located in the village of Hoffman Estates, Ill. (village).1 On February

Stephan, Attorney General of Kansas, William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of Louisiana, James E. Tierney, Attorney General of Maine, Ste- phen H. Sachs, Attorney General of Maryland, and Paul F. Strain, Dennis

M. Sweeney, and Linda H. Lamone, Assistant Attorneys General, Paul L.

Douglas, Attorney General of Nebraska, Richard H. Bryan, Attorney General of Nevada, James R. Zazzali, Attorney General of New Jersey, Jeff Bingaman, Attorney General of New Mexico, Rufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General of North Carolina, and David S. Crump and James L.

Wallace, Jr., Deputy Attorneys General, Jan Eric Cartwright, Attorney General of Oklahoma, Leroy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General of Pennsyl- vania, Mark White, Attorney General of Texas, David L. Wilkinson, At- torney General of Utah, and Kenneth 0. Eikenberry, Attorney General of Washington; and for the Village of Wilmette, Illinois, by Robert J.

Mangler.

"[Flipside] sold literature that included 'A Child's Garden of Grass,' 'Mari- juana Grower's Guide,' and magazines such as 'National Lampoon,' 'Rolling Stone,' and 'High Times.' The novelty devices and tobacco-use related items plaintiff displayed and sold in its store ranged from small commod- ities such as clamps, chain ornaments and earrings through cigarette hold-

Opinion of the Court

20, 1978, the village enacted an ordinance regulating drug paraphernalia, to be effective May 1, 1978.2 The ordinance makes it unlawful for any person "to sell any items, effect, paraphernalia, accessory or thing which is designed or mar- keted for use with illegal cannabis or drugs, as defined by Illi- nois Revised Statutes, without obtaining a license therefor."

The license fee is $150. A business must also file affidavits that the licensee and its employees have not been convicted of a drug-related offense. Moreover, the business must keep a record of each sale of a regulated item, including the name and address of the purchaser, to be open to police inspection.

No regulated item may be sold to a minor. A violation is subject to a fine of not less than $10 and not more than $500, and each day that a violation continues gives rise to a sepa- rate offense. A series of licensing guidelines prepared by the Village Attorney define "Paper," "Roach Clips," "Pipes," and "Paraphernalia," the sale of which is required to be licensed.'

ers, scales, pipes of various types and sizes, to large water pipes, some de- signed for individual use, some which as many as four persons can use with flexible plastic tubes. Plaintiff also sold a large number of cigarette rolling papers in a variety of colors. One of plaintiffs displayed items was a mir- ror, about seven by nine inches with the word 'Cocaine' painted on its sur- face in a purple color. Plaintiff sold cigarette holders, 'alligator clips,' herb sifters, vials, and a variety of tobacco snuff." 485 F. Supp. 400, 403 (ND Ill. 1980).

2The text of the ordinance is set forth in the Appendix to this opinion.

"Paper-white paper or tobacco oriented paper not necessarily designed for use with illegal cannabis or drugs may be displayed. Other paper of colorful design, names oriented for use with illegal cannabis or drugs and displayed are covered.

"Roach Clips-designed for use with illegal cannabis or drugs and there-

fore covered.

"Pipes-if displayed away from the proximity of nonwhite paper or tobacco oriented paper, and not displayed within proximity of roach clips,

HOFFMAN ESTATES v. FLIPSIDE, HOFFMAN ESTATES 493 489

Opinion of the Court

After an administrative inquiry, the village determined that Flipside and one other store appeared to be in violation of the ordinance. The Village Attorney notified Flipside of the existence of the ordinance, and made a copy of the ordi- nance and guidelines available to Flipside. Flipside's owner asked for guidance concerning which items were covered by the ordinance; the Village Attorney advised him to remove items in a certain section of the store "for his protection," and he did so. App. 71. The items included, according to Flipside's description, a clamp, chain ornaments, an "alli- gator" clip, key chains, necklaces, earrings, cigarette hold- ers, glove stretchers, scales, strainers, a pulverizer, squeeze bottles, pipes, water pipes, pins, an herb sifter, mirrors, vi- als, cigarette rolling papers, and tobacco snuff. On May 30, 1978, instead of applying for a license or seeking clarification via the administrative procedures that the village had estab- lished for its licensing ordinances, 4 Flipside filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaint alleged, inter alia, that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and requested in- junctive and declaratory relief and damages. The District Court, after hearing testimony, declined to grant a prelimi- nary injunction. The case was tried without a jury on addi- tional evidence and stipulated testimony. The court issued

or literature encouraging illegal use of cannabis or illegal drugs are not covered; otherwise, covered.

"Paraphernalia-if displayed with roach clips or literature encouraging ille-

gal use of cannabis or illegal drugs it is covered."

4 Ordinance No. 932-1977, the Hoffman Estates Administrative Proce- dure Ordinance, was enacted prior to the drug paraphernalia ordinance, and provides that an interested person may petition for the adoption of an interpretive rule.

If the petition is denied, the person may place the mat- ter on the agenda of an appropriate village committee for review. The Vil- lage Attorney indicated that no interpretive rules had been adopted with respect to the drug paraphernalia ordinance because no one had yet applied for a license. App. 68.

Opinion of the Court

an opinion upholding the constitutionality of the ordinance,

and awarded judgment to the village defendants.

Supp. 400 (1980).

The Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that the ordi- nance is unconstitutionally vague on its face. The court re- viewed the language of the ordinance and guidelines and found it vague with respect to certain conceivable applica- tions, such as ordinary pipes or "paper clips sold next to Roll- It also suggested ing Stone magazine." 639 F. 2d, at 382. that the "subjective" nature of the "marketing" test creates a danger of arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement against Id., at 384. Finally, the those with alternative lifestyles. court determined that the availability of administrative review or guidelines cannot cure the defect. Thus, it con- cluded that the ordinance is impermissibly vague on its face.

In a facial challenge to the overbreadth and vagueness of a law,5 a court's first task is to determine whether the enact- ment reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally pro- If it does not, then the overbreadth chal- tected conduct.' lenge must fail. The court should then examine the facial vagueness challenge and, assuming the enactment implicates

'A "facial" challenge, in this context, means a claim that the law is "invalid in toto--and therefore incapable of any valid application." Steffel In evaluating a facial challenge to

v. Thompson, 415 U. S. 452, 474 (1974).

a state law, a federal court must, of course, consider any limiting construc- tion that a state court or enforcement agency has proffered. Grayned v.

City of Rockford, 408 U. S. 104, 110 (1972).

'In making that determination, a court should evaluate the ambiguous as well as the unambiguous scope of the enactment. To this extent, the vagueness of a law affects overbreadth analysis. The Court has long rec- ognized that ambiguous meanings cause citizens to "'steer far wider of the unlawful zone' . . . than if the boundaries of the forbidden areas were clearly marked." Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U. S. 360, 372 (1964), quoting Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 526 (1958); see Grayned, supra, at 109; cf. Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U. S. 50, 58-61 (1976).

HOFFMAN ESTATES v. FLIPSIDE, HOFFMAN ESTATES 495 489

Opinion of the Court

no constitutionally protected conduct, should uphold the chal- lenge only if the enactment is impermissibly vague in all of its applications. A plaintiff who engages in some conduct that is clearly proscribed cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to the conduct of others.7 A court should therefore examine the complainant's conduct before analyz- ing other hypothetical applications of the law.

The Court of Appeals in this case did not explicitly consider whether the ordinance reaches constitutionally protected conduct and is overbroad, nor whether the ordinance is vague in all of its applications.

Instead, the court determined that the ordinance is void for vagueness because it is unclear in some of its applications to the conduct of Flipside and of other hypothetical parties. Under a proper analysis, however, the ordinance is not facially invalid.

We first examine whether the ordinance infringes Flip- side's First Amendment rights or is overbroad because it in- hibits the First Amendment rights of other parties. Flipside makes the exorbitant claim that the village has imposed a "prior restraint" on speech because the guidelines treat the proximity of drug-related literature as an indicium that para- phernalia are "marketed for use with illegal cannabis or

7"[V]agueness challenges to statutes which do not involve First Amend- ment freedoms must be examined in the light of the facts of the case at hand." United States v. Mazurie, 419 U. S. 544, 550 (1975). See United States v. Powell, 423 U. S. 87, 92-93 (1975); United States v. National Dairy Products Corp., 372 U. S. 29, 32-33, 36 (1963).

"One to whose con- duct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vague- ness." Parker v. Levy, 417 U. S. 733, 756 (1974). The rationale is evi- dent: to sustain such a challenge, the complainant must prove that the enactment is vague "'not in the sense that it requires a person to conform his conduct to an imprecise but comprehensible normative standard, but rather in the sense that no standard of conduct is specified at all.' Coates

v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U. S. 611, 614 (1971). Such a provision simply

has no core." Smith v. Goguen, 415 U. S. 566, 578 (1974).

Opinion of the Court

drugs." Flipside also argues that because the presence of drug-related designs, logos, or slogans on paraphernalia may trigger enforcement, the ordinance infringes "protected sym- bolic speech." Brief for Appellee 25.

These arguments do not long detain us. First, the village has not directly infringed the noncommercial speech of Flipside or other parties. The ordinance licenses and regu- lates the sale of items displayed "with" or "within proximity of" "literature encouraging illegal use of cannabis or illegal drugs," Guidelines, supra n. 3, but does not prohibit or other- wise regulate the sale of literature itself. Although drug- related designs or names on cigarette papers may subject those items to regulation, the village does not restrict speech as such, but simply regulates the commercial marketing of items that the labels reveal may be used for an illicit purpose.

The scope of the ordinance therefore does not embrace non- commercial speech.

Second, insofar as any commercial speech interest is impli- cated here, it is only the attenuated interest in displaying and marketing merchandise in the manner that the retailer de- sires. We doubt that the village's restriction on the manner of marketing appreciably limits Flipside's communication of information S--with one obvious and telling exception. The ordinance is expressly directed at commercial activity pro- moting or encouraging illegal drug use.

If that activity is deemed "speech," then it is speech proposing an illegal trans- action, which a government may regulate or ban entirely.

Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm'n, 447 U. S. 557, 563-564 (1980); Pittsburgh Press Co.

v. Human Relations Comm'n, 413 U. S. 376, 388 (1973).

Finally, it is irrelevant whether the ordinance has an

8 Flipside explained that it placed items that the village considers drug paraphernalia in locations near a checkout counter because some are "point of purchase" items and others are small and apt to be shoplifted. App. 43.

Flipside did not assert that its manner of placement was motivated in any part by a desire to communicate information to its customers.

HOFFMAN ESTATES v. FLIPSIDE, HOFFMAN ESTATES 497 489

Opinion of the Court

overbroad scope encompassing protected commercial speech of other persons, because the overbreadth doctrine does not apply to commercial speech. Central Hudson, supra, at 565, n. 8.1

A law that does not reach constitutionally protected con- duct and therefore satisfies the overbreadth test may never- theless be challenged on its face as unduly vague, in violation of due process. To succeed, however, the complainant must demonstrate that the law is impermissibly vague in all of its applications. Flipside makes no such showing.

' Flipside also argues that the ordinance is "overbroad" because it could extend to "innocent" and "lawful" uses of items as well as uses with illegal drugs. Brief for Appellee 10, 33-35. This argument seems to confuse vagueness and overbreadth doctrines.

If Flipside is objecting that it can- not determine whether the ordinance regulates items with some lawful uses, then it is complaining of vagueness. We find that claim unpersua- sive in this pre-enforcement facial challenge. See infra, at 497-504.

If Flipside is objecting that the ordinance would inhibit innocent uses of items found to be covered by the ordinance, it is complaining of denial of substan- tive due process. The latter claim obviously lacks merit. A retailer's right to sell smoking accessories, and a purchaser's right to buy and use them, are entitled only to minimal due process protection. Here, the vil- lage presented evidence of illegal drug use in the community. App. 37.

Regulation of items that have some lawful as well as unlawful uses is not an irrational means of discouraging drug use. See Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland, 437 U. S. 117, 124-125 (1978).

The hostility of some lower courts to drug paraphernalia laws-and par- ticularly to those regulating the sale of items that have many innocent uses, see, e. g., 639 F. 2d 373, 381-383 (1981); Record Revolution No. 6, Inc. v. City of Parma, 638 F. 2d 916, 928 (CA6 1980), vacated and re- manded, 451 U. S. 1013 (1981)-may reflect a belief that these measures are ineffective in stemming illegal drug use. This perceived defect, how- ever, is not a defect of clarity.

In the unlikely event that a state court construed this ordinance as prohibiting the sale of all pipes, of whatever description, then a seller of corncob pipes could not complain that the law is unduly vague. He could, of course, object that the law was not intended to cover such items.

Opinion of the Court

The standards for evaluating vagueness were enunciated in

"Vague laws offend several important values. First, because 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 accord- ingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not provid- ing fair warning. Second, if arbitrary and discrimina- tory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. 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 applications" (footnotes omitted).

These standards should not, of course, be mechanically ap- plied. The degree of vagueness that the Constitution toler- ates-as well as the relative importance of fair notice and fair enforcement-depends in part on the nature of the enact- ment. Thus, economic regulation is subject to a less strict vagueness test because its subject matter is often more nar- row,10 and because businesses, which face economic demands to plan behavior carefully, can be expected to consult relevant legislation in advance of action.1" Indeed, the regulated en- terprise may have the ability to clarify the meaning of the regulation by its own inquiry, or by resort to an administrative process. 2 The Court has also expressed greater tolerance of

1"Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U. S. 156, 162 (1972) (dic-

tum; collecting cases).

"See, e. g., United States v. National Dairy Products Corp., 372 U. S. 29 (1963). Cf. Smith v. Goguen, 415 U. S., at 574.

2See Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. Hostetter, 384 U. S. 35, 49 (1966); McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420, 428 (1961).

HOFFMAN ESTATES v. FLIPSIDE, HOFFMAN ESTATES 499 489

Opinion of the Court

enactments with civil rather than criminal penalties because the consequences of imprecision are qualitatively less se- vere."3 And the Court has recognized that a scienter re- quirement may mitigate a law's vagueness, especially with respect to the adequacy of notice to the complainant that his conduct is proscribed.14

Finally, perhaps the most important factor affecting the clarity that the Constitution demands of a law is whether it threatens to inhibit the exercise of constitutionally protected rights.

If, for example, the law interferes with the right of free speech or of association, a more stringent vagueness test should apply.' 5

This ordinance simply regulates business behavior and con- tains a scienter requirement with respect to the alternative "marketed for use" standard. The ordinance nominally im- poses only civil penalties. However, the village concedes that the ordinance is "quasi-criminal," and its prohibitory and stigmatizing effect may warrant a relatively strict test.'6

"3 See Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U. S. 109, 137 (1959) (Black, J., with whom Warren, C. J., and Douglas, J., joined, dissenting); Winters v.

New York, 333 U. S. 507, 515 (1948).

" See, e. g., Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U. S. 379, 395 (1979); Boyce Motor Lines v. United States, 342 U. S. 337, 342 (1952); Screws v. United States, 325 U. S. 91, 101-103 (1945) (plurality opinion). See Note, The Void-for- Vagueness Doctrine in the Supreme Court, 109 U. Pa. L. Rev. 67, 87, n. 98 (1960).

'"See, e. g., Papachristou, supra; Grayned, 408 U. S., at 109.

"The village stipulated that the purpose of the ordinance is to discourage use of the regulated items. App. 33. Moreover, the prohibitory and stig- matizing effects of the ordinance are clear. As the Court of Appeals re- marked, "few retailers are willing to brand themselves as sellers of drug paraphernalia, and few customers will buy items with the condition of sign- ing their names and addresses to a register available to the police." 639 F. 2d, at 377. The proposed register is entitled, "Retail Record for Items Designed or Marketed for Use with Illegal Cannabis or Drugs." Record, Complaint, App. B. At argument, counsel for the village admitted that the ordinance is "quasi-criminal." Tr. of Oral Arg. 4-5.

Opinion of the Court

Flipside's facial challenge fails because, under the test appro- priate to either a quasi-criminal or a criminal law, the ordi- nance is sufficiently clear as applied to Flipside.

The ordinance requires Flipside to obtain a license if it sells "any items, effect, paraphernalia, accessory or thing which is designed or marketed for use with illegal cannabis or drugs, as defined by the Illinois Revised Statutes." * Flipside ex- presses no uncertainty about which drugs this description en- compasses; as the District Court noted, 485 F. Supp., at 406, Illinois law clearly defines cannabis and numerous other con- trolled drugs, including cocaine.

Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 56'/2, 703 and 1102(g) (1980). On the other hand, the words "items, effect, paraphernalia, accessory or thing" do not iden- tify the type of merchandise that the village desires to regu- late. 7 Flipside's challenge thus appropriately focuses on the language "designed or marketed for use." Under either the "designed for use" or "marketed for use" standard, we con- clude that at least some of the items sold by Flipside are cov- ered. Thus, Flipside's facial challenge is unavailing.

1. "Designed for use"

The Court of Appeals objected that "designed ... for use" is ambiguous with respect to whether items must be inher- ently suited only for drug use; whether the retailer's intent or manner of display is relevant; and whether the intent of a third party, the manufacturer, is critical, since the manufac- turer is the "designer." 639 F. 2d, at 380-381. For the rea- sons that follow, we conclude that this language is not uncon- stitutionally vague on its face.

The Court of Appeals' speculation about the meaning of "design" is largely unfounded. The guidelines refer to "pa-

1The District Court apparently relied principally on the growing vernac- ular understanding of "paraphernalia" as drug-related items, and therefore did not separately analyze the meaning of "designed or marketed for use."

485 F. Supp., at 405-407. We agree with the Court of Appeals that a regulation of "paraphernalia" alone would not provide much warning of the nature of the items regulated. 639 F. 2d, at 380.

HOFFMAN ESTATES v. FLIPSIDE, HOFFMAN ESTATES 501 489

Opinion of the Court

per of colorful design" and to other specific items as conclu- sively "designed" or not "designed" for illegal use. 8 A prin- cipal meaning of "design" is "[t]o fashion according to a plan."

Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Lan- guage 707 (2d ed. 1957). Cf. Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306

U. S. 451, 454, n. 3 (1939).

It is therefore plain that the standard encompasses at least an item that is principally used with illegal drugs by virtue of its objective features, i. e., fea- tures designed by the manufacturer. A business person of ordinary intelligence would understand that this term refers to the design of the manufacturer, not the intent of the re- tailer or customer.

It is also sufficiently clear that items which are principally used for nondrug purposes, such as or- dinary pipes, are not "designed for use" with illegal drugs.

Moreover, no issue of fair warning is present in this case, since Flipside concedes that the phrase refers to structural characteristics of an item.'9

"The guidelines explicitly provide that "white paper ... may be dis- played," and that "Roach Clips" are "designed for use with illegal cannabis or drugs and therefore covered" (emphasis added). The Court of Appeals criticized the latter definition for failing to explain what a "roach clip" is.

This criticism is unfounded because that technical term has sufficiently clear meaning in the drug paraphernalia industry. Without undue burden, Flipside could easily determine the meaning of the term. See American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1122 (1980) (defining "roach"

A Dictionary 213-214 (1969) (defining "roach" and "roach holder"). More- over, the explanation that a retailer may display certain paper "not neces- sarily designed for use" clarifies that the ordinance at least embraces items that are necessarily designed for use with cannabis or illegal drugs.

""It is readily apparent that under the Hoffman Estates scheme, the 'de- signed for use' phrase refers to the physical characteristics of items deemed per se fashioned for use with drugs; and that, if any intentional conduct is implicated by the phrase, it is the intent of the 'designer' (i. e. patent holder or manufacturer) whose intent for an item or 'design' is ab- sorbed into the physical attributes, or structural 'design' of the finished product." Brief for Appellee 42-43. Moreover, the village President de- scribed drug paraphernalia as items "[mlanufactured for that purpose and marketed for that purpose." App. 82 (emphasis added).

Opinion of the Court

The ordinance and guidelines do contain ambiguities.

Nevertheless, the "designed for use" standard is sufficiently clear to cover at least some of the items that Flipside sold.

The ordinance, through the guidelines, explicitly regulates "roach clips." Flipside's co-operator admitted that the store sold such items, see Tr. 26, 30, and the village Chief of Police testified that he had never seen a "roach clip" used for any purpose other than to smoke cannabis. App. 52. The Chief also testified that a specially designed pipe that Flipside mar- keted is typically used to smoke marihuana. Ibid. Whether further guidelines, administrative rules, or enforcement pol- icy will clarify the more ambiguous scope of the standard in other respects is of no concern in this facial challenge.

2. "Marketed for use"

Whatever ambiguities the "designed ...

for use" standard may engender, the alternative "marketed for use" standard is transparently clear: it describes a retailer's intentional dis- play and marketing of merchandise. The guidelines refer to the display of paraphernalia, and to the proximity of covered items to otherwise uncovered items. A retail store there- fore must obtain a license if it deliberately displays its wares in a manner that appeals to or encourages illegal drug use.

The standard requires scienter, since a retailer could scarcely "market" items "for" a particular use without intending that use.

Under this test, Flipside had ample warning that its mar- keting activities required a license. Flipside displayed the magazine High Times and books entitled Marijuana Grower's Guide, Children's Garden of Grass, and The Pleasures of Co- caine, physically close to pipes and colored rolling papers, in clear violation of the guidelines. As noted above, Flipside's co-operator admitted that his store sold "roach clips," which are principally used for illegal purposes. Finally, in the

HOFFMAN ESTATES v. FLIPSIDE, HOFFMAN ESTATES 503 489

Opinion of the Court

same section of the store, Flipside had posted the sign, "You must be 18 or older to purchase any head supplies."' Tr. 30.

The Court of Appeals also held that the ordinance pro- vides insufficient standards for enforcement. Specifically, the court feared that the ordinance might be used to harass individuals with alternative lifestyles and views. 639 F. 2d, at 384.

In reviewing a business regulation for facial vague- ness, however, the principal inquiry is whether the law af- fords fair warning of what is proscribed. Moreover, this em- phasis is almost inescapable in reviewing a pre-enforcement challenge to a law. Here, no evidence has been, or could be, introduced to indicate whether the ordinance has been en- forced in a discriminatory manner or with the aim of inhibit- ing unpopular speech. The language of the ordinance is sufficiently clear that the speculative danger of arbitrary enforcement does not render the ordinance void for vague- ness. Cf. Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U. S. 156, 168-171 (1972); Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U. S. 611, 614 (1971).

We do not suggest that the risk of discriminatory enforce- ment is insignificant here. Testimony of the Village Attor- ney who drafted the ordinance, the village President, and the Police Chief revealed confusion over whether the ordinance applies to certain items, as well as extensive reliance on the "judgment" of police officers to give meaning to the ordinance and to enforce it fairly. At this stage, however, we are not prepared to hold that this risk jeopardizes the entire ordinance.2'

I The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 606 (1980) gives the following alternative definition of "head": "Slang. One who is a frequent user of drugs."

"The theoretical possibility that the village will enforce its ordinance against a paper clip placed next to Rolling Stone magazine, 639 F. 2d, at

Opinion of the Court

Nor do we assume that the village will take no further steps to minimize the dangers of arbitrary enforcement.

The village may adopt administrative regulations that will sufficiently narrow potentially vague or arbitrary interpreta- tions of the ordinance.

In economic regulation especially, such administrative regulation will often suffice to clarify a standard with an otherwise uncertain scope. We also find it significant that the village, in testimony below, primarily re- lied on the "marketing" aspect of the standard, which does not require the more ambiguous item-by-item analysis of whether paraphernalia are "designed for" illegal drug use, and which therefore presents a lesser risk of discriminatory enforcement.

"Although it is possible that specific future applications ... may engender concrete problems of con- stitutional dimension, it will be time enough to consider any such problems when they arise."

Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. Hostetter, 384 U. S. 35, 52 (1966).1

Many American communities have recently enacted laws regulating or prohibiting the sale of drug paraphernalia.

382, is of no due process significance unless the possibility ripens into a prosecution.

'The Court of Appeals also referred to potential Fourth Amendment problems resulting from the recordkeeping requirement, which "implies that a customer who purchases an item 'designed or marketed for use with illegal cannabis or drugs' intends to use the item with illegal cannabis or drugs. A further implication could be that a customer is subject to police scrutiny or even to a search warrant on the basis of the purchase of a legal Id., at 384. We will not address these Fourth Amendment issues item." here.

In a pre-enforcement challenge it is difficult to determine whether Fourth Amendment rights are seriously threatened. Flipside offered no evidence of a concrete threat below.

In a postenforcement proceeding Flipside may attempt to demonstrate that the ordinance is being employed in such an unconstitutional manner, and that it has standing to raise the objection.

It is appropriate to defer resolution of these problems until such a showing is made.

HOFFMAN ESTATES v. FLIPSIDE, HOFFMAN ESTATES 505 489

Appendix to opinion of the Court

To determine whether these laws are wise or effective is not, of course, the province of this Court. See Ferguson v.

Skrupa, 372 U. S. 726, 728-730 (1963). We hold only that such legislation is not facially overbroad or vague if it does not reach constitutionally protected conduct and is reason- ably clear in its application to the complainant.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is re- versed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

JUSTICE STEVENS took no part in the consideration or deci- sion of this case.

Village of Hoffman Estates Ordinance No. 969-1978

WHEREAS, certain items designed or marketed for use with illegal drugs are being retailed within the Village of Hoffman Estates, Cook County, Illinois, and

WHEREAS, it is recognized that such items are legal retail items and that their sale cannot be banned, and

WHEREAS, there is evidence that these items are designed or marketed for use with illegal cannabis or drugs and it is in the best interests of the health, safety and welfare of the citi- zens of the Village of Hoffman Estates to regulate within the Village the sale of items designed or marketed for use with illegal cannabis or drugs.

Now THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Hoffman Estates, Cook

Appendix to opinion of the Court

Section 1: That the Hoffman Estates Municipal Code be amended by adding thereto an additional Section, Section 8-7-16, which additional section shall read as follows:

It shall be unlawful for any person or persons as princi- pal, clerk, agent or servant to sell any items, effect, paraphernalia, accessory or thing which is designed or marketed for use with illegal cannabis or drugs, as de- fined by Illinois Revised Statutes, without obtaining a li- cense therefor. Such licenses shall be in addition to any or all other licenses held by applicant.

Application to sell any item, effect, paraphernalia, acces- sory or thing which is designed or marketed for use with illegal cannabis or drugs shall, in addition to require- ments of Article 8-1, be accompanied by affidavits by ap- plicant and each and every employee authorized to sell such items that such person has never been convicted of a drug-related offense.

It shall be unlawful to sell or give items as described in Section 8-7-16A in any form to any male or female child under eighteen years of age.

Every licensee must keep a record of every item, effect, paraphernalia, accessory or thing which is designed or marketed for use with illegal cannabis or drugs which is sold and this record shall be open to the inspection of any police officer at any time during the hours of business.

Such record shall contain the name and address of the purchaser, the name and quantity of the product, the date and time of the sale, and the licensee or agent of the licensee's signature, such records shall be retained for not less than two (2) years.

HOFFMAN ESTATES v. FLIPSIDE, HOFFMAN ESTATES 507 489

WHITE, J., concurring in judgment

The applicant shall comply with all applicable regulations of the Department of Health Services and the Police Department.

Section 2: That the Hoffman Estates Municipal Code be amended by adding to Sec. 8-2-1 Fees: Merchants (Products)

Items designed or marketed for use with illegal cannabis or drugs $150.00

Section 3: Penalty. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall be fined not less than ten dollars ($10.00) nor more than five hundred dollars ($500.00) for the first of- fense and succeeding offenses during the same calendar year, and each day that such violation shall continue shall be deemed a separate and distinct offense.

Section 4: That the Village Clerk be and is hereby author- ized to publish this ordinance in pamphlet form.

Section 5: That this ordinance shall be in full force and ef- fect May 1, 1978, after its passage, approval and publication according to law.

JUSTICE WHITE, concurring in the judgment. I agree that the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be reversed. I do not, however, believe it necessary to discuss the overbreadth problem in order to reach this result. The Court of Appeals held the ordinance to be void for vagueness; it did not discuss any problem of overbreadth. That opinion should be reversed simply because it erred in its analysis of the vagueness problem presented by the ordinance.

I agree with the majority that a facial vagueness challenge to an economic regulation must demonstrate that "the enact- ment is impermissibly vague in all of its applications." Ante, I also agree with the majority's statement that the at 495. "marketed for use" standard in the ordinance is "sufficiently clear." There is, in my view, no need to go any further: If it

WHITE, J., concurTing in judgment

is "transparently clear" that some particular conduct is re- stricted by the ordinance, the ordinance survives a facial challenge on vagueness grounds.

Technically, overbreadth is a standing doctrine that per- mits parties in cases involving First Amendment challenges to government restrictions on noncommercial speech to argue that the regulation is invalid because of its effect on the First Amendment rights of others not presently before the Court.

Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U. S. 601, 612-615 (1973).

Whether the appellee may make use of the overbreadth doc- trine depends, in the first instance, on whether or not it has a colorable claim that the ordinance infringes on constitution- ally protected, noncommercial speech of others. Although appellee claims that the ordinance does have such an effect, that argument is tenuous at best and should be left to the lower courts for an initial determination.

Accordingly, I concur in the judgment reversing the deci- sion below.