Go to:	Briefs Menu	Cases Pending	Cases Decided

VIRGINIA v. BLACK

United States Supreme Court No. 01-1107

---

QUESTIONS PRESENTED: 1) Does Virginia’s statute prohibiting burning a cross with intent to intimidate violate the rule of R.A.V. v. St. Paul, by discriminating between types of threats on the basis of content unrelated to the state’s legitimate interest in protecting people from threats?

2) Does the statute prohibit speech other than constitutionally proscribable threats? If so, are those applications severable?

3) After severing any severable, invalid applications, is the statute substantially overbroad?

ORAL ARGUMENT DATE: December 11, 2002

---

INTRODUCTION

Interest of amicus curiae
Summary of facts and case
Summary of argument

Argument - Parts I - II A

I. The overbreadth doctrine should be used sparingly, and only as a last resort

A. The overbroad overbreadth doctrine
B. The legitimate scope of judicial review
C. Collateral damage

II. The statute validly prohibits unprotected threats

A. Proscribable threats

Parts II B - Conclusion

B. Content discrimination

III. Narrowing construction and severability must be considered before determining if any overbreadth is substantial

A. Narrowing construction
B. Severability

Conclusion