Hegwood v. City of Eau Claire, 676 F.3d 600

Nasty Habit, a popular Eau Claire bar, had its liquor license revoked under Wis. Stat. § 125.12(2)(ag)(2) for maintaining a disorderly house.
Hegwood, an agent of the bar, challenged the statute as unconstitutionally vague, arguing vagueness rendered compliance/ enforcement arbitrary.
Police and City officials documented a pattern of disturbances and confrontations involving staff and patrons from 2003 through early 2006.
The City issued complaints seeking revocation; the Administrative Review Board and City Council proceedings led to license revocation.
Hegwood sued in district court alleging retaliation, denial of equal protection, and due process; summary judgment was granted for the defendants on all counts.
On appeal, Hegwood limits challenges to the due process vagueness argument, asserting the statute is vague in its terms and applications.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
As-applied vagueness	Hegwood argues § 125.12(2)(ag)(2) is vague as applied to Nasty Habit.	City contends the statute provides sufficient guidance and the applied conduct fits the statute.	Not unconstitutionally vague as applied.
Facial vagueness	Hegwood contends the statute is vague in all applications.	City asserts the statute is sufficiently defined in at least one application.	Facial vagueness not established; no need to address facial challenge.

Sherman ex rel. Sherman v. Koch, 623 F.3d 501 (7th Cir. 2010) (due process vagueness requires reasonable understanding of prohibited conduct)
Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (Supreme Court 1989) (perfect clarity not required; must define offense with sufficient definiteness)
Fuller ex rel. Fuller v. Decatur Pub. Sch. Dist. 61, 251 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2001) (as-applied vagueness analysis focuses on the particular case's facts)
United States v. Moore, 644 F.3d 553 (7th Cir. 2011) (de novo review governs constitutional questions)