Overbroad

Overbroad is a term used in law to describe a statute, regulation, or policy that restricts substantially more speech or conduct than necessary to achieve its legitimate objective. In constitutional doctrine, an overbroad law is one that, on its face, prohibits a broad range of conduct or expression, including a substantial amount of protected speech, relative to its legitimate aims.

The core idea is that laws should not chill more speech than necessary. Courts assess breadth by comparing the law’s stated goals with the scope of prohibited conduct. If the reach of the law sweeps in a large amount of protected expression, it may be deemed overbroad. When a statute is found overbroad, courts can declare it invalid in its entirety or strike the unconstitutional portions while leaving the rest intact, if possible through severability. If severance is not feasible, the entire statute may be struck down.

Overbreadth is most closely associated with First Amendment challenges in the United States. It is different from vagueness, which concerns insufficiently clear terms that lead to arbitrary enforcement; a law can be both overbroad and vague, or one without the other.

Examples typically involve laws that ban broad categories of speech or activities without precise definitions, such as prohibitions on “disruptive” or “obscene” conduct that could cover many protected forms of expression. The overbreadth doctrine serves to protect core constitutional freedoms by preventing government rules from suppressing lawful speech as a side effect of addressing legitimate regulatory aims.