DEFENSE · 21usc841:x-vagueness
Evaluated as applied to the facts of the case because § 841 implicates no First Amendment freedoms.
Exact element source
1 gram or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD);Source:
docroot/ir/usc/title21.jsonl#title21_sec841; Unicode character offsets [5386:5494] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ebaba73bf6e21a591f44bf851f24a052a5687813c505030cd9483e17753e9420.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| _whole accepted; provisional (1 case) | The element is decided as a whole: the reasoning turns on no narrower doctrinal sub-question that distinguishes it from any other application of this element. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (1). Excluded context examples:Chapman v. United States — 500 U.S. 453 (1991) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 — not · law (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/procedural · not counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chapman v. United States — 500 U.S. 453 (1991) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 — not · law (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Fifth Amendment void-for-vagueness challenge to "mixture or substance" or analogue provisions | not Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural basis: law; claim: (a),(b)(1)(B)(v) | as-applied/sentencing-term-not-vague | First Amendment freedoms are not infringed by §841, so the vagueness claim must be evaluated as the statute is applied to the facts of this case.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_500.jsonl#/us/500/0453-01; Unicode character offsets [22168:22313] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9c5fd40cbce1f1caf4effb469b4d262677c3bae7a486aaca29dd0c70e05d713c.The fact that there may be plausible arguments against describing blotter paper impregnated with LSD as a “mixture or substance” containing LSD does not mean that the statute is vague.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_500.jsonl#/us/500/0453-01; Unicode character offsets [22364:22548] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9c5fd40cbce1f1caf4effb469b4d262677c3bae7a486aaca29dd0c70e05d713c. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
First Amendment freedoms are not infringed by §841, so the vagueness claim must be evaluated as the statute is applied to the facts of this case.
Chapman v. United States — 500 U.S. 453 (1991) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
First Amendment freedoms are not infringed by §841, so the vagueness claim must be evaluated as the statute is applied to the facts of this case.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_500.jsonl#/us/500/0453-01; Unicode character offsets [22168:22313] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9c5fd40cbce1f1caf4effb469b4d262677c3bae7a486aaca29dd0c70e05d713c.Evaluated as applied to the facts of the case because § 841 implicates no First Amendment freedoms.