Corporation of Haverford College v. Reeher

faith, neighborhood product plan made bad or was motivated was by is the segregationist administered, prin- impartially an attachment to it would self ciples. defeating hold that the Fourteenth taking Amendment forbids such board Keyes recognizes neighbor that neutrality some action. If is curative plans, impartially hood school when unconstitutional, certainly action de- administered, maintained and do not vio signed to cure undesirable imbalance rights though late constitutional even though not, even fall short plans the result of such imbal racial goal. ance. United v. Board of Educa States County, tion of Tulsa On this record 429 F.2d 1253 Court cannot find (10th Cir., 1970); strong Board of Education there is a likelihood that City Dowell, plaintiffs prevail of Oklahoma F.2d will on the merits in Cir., (10th 1967) ; found, Board Downs v. action. Nor can it be on bal- ance, City, resulting of Education of Kansas 336 F.2d harm from the (10th Cir., 1964). preliminary injunction It is when denial of sought greater a board of education embarks on a would be than the harm by interfering by purposeful done course which is motivated the district with its perpetuate implementation desire to of what and maintain racial be demon- ly segregated plan. strated to be a schools that the- constitu sound effective injunction Accordingly, preliminary tional of those affected have been violated. denied. ' Keyes foregoing The trial shall court in refused constitute the findings find that Court’s of fact schools in what were referred and conclusions segregated as “core” had law herein. areas Appeals state action and Court of finding, holding refused to disturb the plaintiffs had failed in their burden proving by preponderance of the

evidence that racial imbalance existed

and was caused intentional state ac- similarly approved tion. the trial finding inap- court’s that there was no The CORPORATION OF HAVERFORD propriate segregative state action or de- Plaintiffs, al., COLLEGE et locating minority sire in teachers predominantly minority pu- schools with individually REEHER, Kenneth R. as pils, pointing that, questioned out while Executive Director of the some, theory there is rational Higher Agency, Education Assistance pupils black thoroughly relate more al., et Defendants. teachers, image black Civ. A. No. 70-2411. successful, well-educated black at provides head of a class the best kind of Court, United States District children, Pennsylvania. motivation for and that E. D. greater understanding black teacher July 19, pupils’ of the black educational and so- problems. cial plain-

The most that can be said showing

tiffs’ is that the district has effectively rapidly not moved as

adjust plaintiffs racial as imbalance This, however,

would like. involves no deprivation.

constitutional If school permitted, they are,

boards to do nothing to cure racial imbalance which

H99 Association, National States Student Inc., amicus curiae. Wofford, Jr., Bryn Mawr, Harris L. Pa., twenty-eight colleges and uni- versities, amicus curiae. Lesniek, Philadelphia,

Howard Pa. (Robert O’Neil, Berkeley, Cal., Her- C., Orentlicher, Washington, I.man D. brief), with him on for the American As- Professors, University sociation of ami- cus curiae. Judge, BIGGS,

Before Circuit LORD, Judges. DITTER, District OPINION Judge. III, LORD, District JOSEPH S. colleges col Plaintiffs, twelve and two university lege students, seek a de or Pennsyl claratory judgment two 5104.1, statutes, Pa.Stat.Ann. §§ vania and (1971),1 unconstitutional 5158.2 restraining injunction officials an Higher Assist Education enforcing Agency (PHEAA) from ance acting statutes. those under or otherwise jurisdiction the con This has court 1343, troversy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2284, and 42 U.S.C. § summary plaintiffs for have moved The judgment the statutes’ issues of on all unconstitutionality pursuant Fed.R. to Civ.P. 56. maintain seek to Plaintiffs Silver, Dilworth, Paxson, Lawrence Plaintiff Goddard a class action. this as Kalish, Levy Coleman, Natali, & Louis M. institu College represent 26 purports to Jr., Appel Natali, Segal, Philadelphia, & an to execute refused tions Pa., plaintiffs. the stat -agreement under PHEAA with Killian, Gephart, John D. Killian & Ed- not so this class hold that ute. We Friedman, Gen., Dept, ward Counsel impracticable, joinder is numerous that Justice, Pa., Harrisburg, J. Shane Cream- 23(a), and thus Goddard Fed.R.Civ.P.

er, Atty. Gen., for defendants. representative of as treated shall not be action. purpose of this class for the Philadelphia, III, Henry Sawyer, W. the re plaintiffs meet other named Washing- The Jr., (William Bradford, A. Pa. 23,2 main- and quirements of Rule brief), ton, C., him on United D. with now, however, thus not a Appendix A for text. See presently the statute. affected is not complaint lie! We hold that dropped out Isabel Paul lias 2. Plaintiff controversy case that no mooted filing this action. since the school plaintiff defend- Paul attending between exists alleges will be she She her hear us would allow University ants in the Fall of Drexel complaint. reported. subject being She and will be Col- decision on as a action. Haverford should abstain tain this class grounds vagueness lege represents class of institutions overbreadth agree- give oppor- reporting state an order tunity courts which have executed retain This is in order to construe the statute. ments with PHEAA Younger Harris, “approved” their institutions case like status eligible receive 27 L.Ed.2d 669 whose students will be 91 S.Ct. Ledesma, O’Shaughnessy, (1971), or Perez v. Plaintiffs state aid. Hutchins, (1971), Levine, Goldman, Rabinowitz improper represent where the Court held students who Schaefer injunctions by the Fed- loans or scholar- the issuance of have ships their PHEAA lost against proceed- Court attend institutions eral ings. state criminal because proceedings reporting No exist refused to execute state court which have agreements Plaintiffs relevant PHEAA. case. Goodwin, represent and McLamb Sullivan equitable doc Abstention signing “Hav- students at institutions Younger Harris, supra, trine. 401 U. who, agreement3 with erford” PHEAA 675; S. at 27 L.Ed.2d get aid, must dis- order financial Voyage Liquor Hostetter v. Idlewild Bon supplemental close they form whether Corp., provisions within sub- fall light 12 L.Ed.2d (1), (a) sections legislative history of the statute agree promptly must to inform PHEAA saving (c) section clause indicates they if act so as within sub- to fall those permit only expres an intent to verbal and must insti- sections authorize their views, of do not sion we the stat consider verify to their if tutions answers limiting “obviously susceptible ute of Ingram requests. so PHEAA Plaintiffs Koota, construction.” Zwickler v. See represent and students at insti- Casnoff n. 88 S.Ct. signing agreements tutions “Haverford” (1967). plaintiffs Where supplemental refuse to execute such who justifiably claim the statute eligibility forms thus lost and their overbroad, and abstention defeat can the for financial assistance. doctrines, purposes of those which exist part protect The record us of before consists stipulations the at to least the cautious answer, complaint and citizen who gaging from en deterred agreed by counsel, fact on exhibits intro- in conduct which the state either plaintiffs by punish. duced into evidence and evi- could not or did not intend to See, hearing plaintiffs’ g., Koota, supra, dence offered at a on e. at Zwickler partial preliminary motion relief. 391; 88 S.Ct. v. Pfist Dombrowski undisputed er, The 479, 486-487, 492, in the factual issues U.S. 1116, 14 the record are bases for determination of (1965). Appropriate L.Ed.2d 22 allegations plaintiffs’ the merits of here are the Court’s observa unconstitutionally vague the statutes are about tions abstention in face of First, challenge vagueness overbroad and violate loyalty to a oath: “ Fifth, * Fourth, * * Ninth Tenth Amend- it is In these circumstances pro- process equal ments and the due how difficult to see an abstract tection clauses of the Fourteenth Amend- [by struction challenged of the state courts] * ment. * * terms a de- claratory judgment action could elimi- I. ABSTENTION vagueness nate from these terms. anything Although It is fictional to believe that party neither has raised the issue, adjudications, less than extensive un- must we consider whether we questions asking agreement, whether fall with- Under Haverford agrees verify, by required in the terms subsections if stitution (2) so, PIIEAA to do extent of knowledge, given by the answers students a conclusion variety mere recital followed impact factual of a der the unconstitutionally is not situations, is or bring within oath would seemingly in- produces often permissible uncertain constitu- the bounds provides little results4 certainty. consistent does Abstention tional legislators with concerned Baggett Bullitt, assistance require this.” drafting rea- The definite statutes. approach several is to look at soned L.Ed.2d 377 im- considered which courts have factors lengthy delay if occur The which would relating portant rationale for courts we to the state referred this case particular Some statutes. doctrine equally lengthy period would occasion an always statutory neces- definiteness rights plaintiffs impingement on sary; pivotal to the decision as but action, assuming protect seek in this degree certainty depends several addition, our their claims be valid. considerations : state possible worries about friction (1) threat- The of the nature arising to abstain officials from failure uncertainty; mitigated ened the fact that somewhat attorneys representing state (2) probability that the threat- The agency have never raised abstention right actually infringed. will be ened reasons, discre- issue. For in the these a function of This has seen as equity powers, tionary our exercise of applies the al- sort tribunal what Baggett Bullitt, supra, at standard; legedly uncertain deciding 1316, we decline to abstain (3) potential deterrent effect plaintiffs’ the merits of claims. infringement. risk This of the largely na- function II. VAGUENESS imposed by penalty ture of the allege Plaintiffs that subsections statute; (1), (a) sec- of the two practical power the fed- vague. They unconstitutionally tions are supervise courts to the adminis- eral charge govern the standards scheme; allegedly tration eligibility PHEAA’s determinations and “vague so men intelli- of common subject (5) 'The extent which the gence necessarily guess must at [their] verbally imprecise area necessitates meaning” and “the first therefore violate regulation.5 process of Con- essential due of law.” nally Co., U. General 269 v. Construction The determination of what 391, 385, 126, 127, S. 46 L.Ed. S.Ct. 70 rights alleged by the un are threatened (1926). 322 these can be certainties in subsections Connally asking While the test has been by it is that students made what guide ju generally doing articulated as the will avoid if are unsure of the vagueness, meaning.6 dicial its determinations of statute’s Under subsections Note, Void-for-Vagueness 77, 758, Landry, 4. See The Doc 401 91 27 U.S. S.Ct. Supreme Court, trine in the 109 U.Pa. L.Ed.2d 696 67, (1960) L.Rev. n. 30 [herein 70-72 importance likely looking 6. The at the Void-for-Vagueness after cited The subject reactions of to the those statute Doctrine], emphasized by was the Court Keyishian Regents, in v. Board of 385 synthesized 675, 589, 599, These considerations were L.Ed.2d U.S. S.Ct. 87 17 many vagueness (1967) say from in cases area. 629 “It : no answer synthesis extensively applied That relied on The in statute not be would Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine, supra, po gainsay at such case. cannot We 94-96, wording cited therein. See also cases tential effect of this obscure Fisher, F.Supp. 101, scrupu Henkes v. 314 107 ‘those with a conscientious (D.Mass.1970); Landry Daley, regard undertakings’. 280 F. v. lous such Supp. 938, (N.D.Ill.1968), Bullitt, Baggett 360, 952-953 rev’d [84 v. 377 U.S. 374 grounds, Boyle on other sub v. 377].” nom. S.Ct. 12 L.Ed.2d 1202 (a) (3), (a) (2) and the student will at be assumed to more to the sensitive

tempt to avoid conduct which niceties constitutional law.10 PHEAA disruption applying termed a broad discretion the stat- disturbance Certainly ute, university partially legislature he activities. would because did many protests guide to avoid and demonstra not set its de- tend standards many legislature protected did tions, of which are terminations. ac Where standards, proscription set its tivities under the First Amendment.7 A such as higher degree required (c) certainty if both subsection statutes potentially inhibiting “nothing a statute has ef in this section shall be con- Button, speech. fects on free v. strued limit NAACP the freedom of stu- 432, 328, 415, expression 371 83 9 L.Ed. dent to U.S. S.Ct. verbal of individual (1963); guidance Cramp opinions,” 2d 405 views or v. Board Public could 287, suggest 278, pun- Instruction, well to PHEAA that it can (1961); ish 7 L.Ed.2d 285 non-verbal the courts Smith v. activities which California, 150-151, protect under S. Constitution. Finally, Ct. we L.Ed.2d 205 Under take fact that notice many penchant par- subsection will students at tempt ticipating protests to avoid The and demonstra- misdemeanor. potential just activity tions, threat First sorts Amendment most vagueness likely punished freedoms allegedly from there is to be thus under the less than in subsections indefinite standards. (3)8 potential The deterrent effect probability supposed that First Amendment indefiniteness is likewise sub- infringed will parties recognized in some manner stantial. here (3) appears potential usually substan deterrence will being tial. The penalty imposed uncertain be a standards are function of the applied place by statute, in the first arguing an adminis and insisted on at agency length university, trative “penal.” or even a whether rather than regarded state courts which While courts can have often See, g., Gregory Chicago, e. he cannot afford lose U.S. his financial aid. instance, uncertainty S.Ct. sur- (1969) ; rounding City Shuttlesworth of Birm the term can deter the student ingham, activity be constitu- protected ; tionally 22 L.Ed.2d Edwards which he would engaged Carolina, South 372 U.S. 83 S.Ct. have had not his it been for fear (1963) ; involving Thornhill that it be classified as Alabama, turpitude.” v. “moral 84 L.Ed. 1093 (2), university 9. Under the decides expelled the whether student should be vague- 8. The term in for attacked obey regulation for a refusal lawful turpitude.” Regardless ness is “moral and whether that refusal contributed meaning phrase, of that a student disruption. a Defendant Reelier testified must be convicted of a misdemeanor be- will financial that PHEAA withhold aid eligibility, he fore can be denied he by reported as as a is the soon student cannot be so convicted if he en- university falling within as the terms protected gaging in First Amendment ac- elig- If the student is denied tivity. Therefore, jthe uncertain standard by ibility of Di- a vote of Board protected be cannot used to reach ac- rectors, appeal and will he can the facts tivity. However, there is some connec- hearing. de novo at a be determined vague phrase tion between and in- testimony However, made Reeher’s fringement rights First Amendment rely probably will PIIEAA that clear willing where a student to run the risk is university report heavily for the on the activity, that certain such as demonstra- against student such an evidence tion, may is a he misdemeanor and that appeal. jailed time, fined for a short but Doctrine, unwilling Void-for-Vagueness to take the 10. See The chance ac- tivity turpitude” supra,, n. 142. involves “moral because at 94 & scheme’s administration involves as critical distinction civil-criminal attempt determining required to estimate the abuses of con- standard g., New stitutional which can concealed certainty, see, e. Winters agency state fact-find- court York, and/or ing.13 (3), fact think better Under L.Ed. we by finally university, that de- determinations made bases view is that which may required give which not be on the seriousness of what termination statutory hearing, scheme.11 heavily at stake under student a influence adopted the view The Third Circuit initial and final fact determinations Soglin F.Supp. Kauffman, right made PHEAA. The to cross- (W.D.Wis.1968), aff’d 418 F.2d against examine the witnesses him a 1969), suspen- (C.A.7, expulsion or hearing appellate PHEAA the stu- avails be, “may sion from school well and often dent little when the evidence him against fact, a more severe sanction than report university is a from the on his ac- monetary relatively fine or a brief tivities, testimony as the of Executive imposed in a crimi- finement a court Director Reeher indicated would often Dantinne, proceeding.” nal Falcone regulations be the case. PHEAA which 1969). (C.A.3, 420 F.2d provide grounds for a statement of the eligibility may loss financial aid eligibility for the initial denial of expul- an even more effect than drastic findings suspension,12 sion or appel- deterrent if fact there is an great effect on students must be as hearing late make its decisions more many that of criminal statutes. At the susceptible judicial than if no review time, recognize same we must loss given. However, reasons were while the carry of financial aid onus does hearing findings examiner must make may present criminal conviction and of fact14 and recommendations after hardship. a financial We conclude hearing, Ap- neither the Committee on potential therefore that the deterrent ef- peals findings which reviews his nor the fect protected of the risk that exercise of Board of Directors who make the final activity will result in loss of financial appeal required decision oh the substantial; however, aid is it is not so findings give supporting state great reasons as it would if the threatened penalty their decision. It is these factual deter- were criminal conviction result- imprisonment in a multi-month provide minations PHEAA will a stiff fine. and/or framework constitutional challenge validity agency to the of Determination of the federal courts’ supervisory ruling.15 power allegedly determinations, over Such requirement guarantee 11. The Court has indicated re- 14. This is no cently reviewing adequate between distinction civil court will have an picture and criminal sanctions have less factual of what ac- vitality tually findings Win- than did at the time of did. The fact ters, supra. discussing only Without that dis- consist the there of conclusion that tinction, vagueness disruption the Court voided was a and that the student pub- the'findings it, may New York statutes which threatened contributed employ- lic school teachers loss of those which clude statements facts Keyishian Regents, hearing support ment. v. Board of examiner’s the conclu- sions, findings L.Ed.2d little 385 U.S. 87 S.Ct. the consist of or report pre- The Court stressed the the evidence more a than danger uncertainty protected of the sented. activity. First Amendment See, g., Lowry, e. 15. Herndon 301 U.S. p. 18, 12. See infra. 242, 263, L.Ed. 1066 57 S.Ct. Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine, (1937) ; Void-for-Vagueness 13. See The Doc- supra, 80-81, supra, trine, at at 80 n. 81 n. 74. fying the control of the federal terms outside delineate the sort effectively courts, may campus per doom conduct not student will ruling simple to an on his claims mitted. even also a matter adverse get legislature if not to the federal courts. he does intent include some re Thus, supervisory power quirement, federal court such as the use of “malicious wilfully” vague ly allegedly Michigan scheme or over the is cur- saved significant tailed in a fashion. anti-disorder statute from indefiniten Reese, McAlpine F. ess.19 See determining In to which extent Supp. 136, (E.D.Mich.1970). subject verbally impre- area necessitates light of these five regulation,17 px'ofit- considera cise it seems most tions, po we conclude ways that a substantial able to look at the in which states tential threat to First Amendment free regulated have similar An conduct. ob- uncertainty doms would result from in parallel vious exists between (2) (3), subsections sought (2) by (a) duct to be deterred control over administration disorderly (3) conduct or scheme the federal courts is not such peace breach of the statutes. As the possibility, would neutralize that upheld by Court in subject regulated matter does Boll, Zwicker v. 391 U.S. not necessitate standards of con indicates,18 trol give which leave room for ad hoc deci can at descrip- state least some Therefore, apply sions. we tion of will a strict the conduct condemns as well certainty consequence society standard as of to these subsec seeks nearly tions. impossible to avoid. It would Because of its more tenuous con every rights, nection itemize form of conduct with First Amendment might disruption peace (1) in result of the subsection will be measux-ed against university, rigorous certainty of the but eai'eful require draftsman- less ship generic can make use of and modi- ments. Agency obviously greater exercises much courts as he would have been if no re- determining permitted. in discretion the factual is- view were sue whether a student contributed to a 17. Consideration of this factor in deter disruption if than before them issue mining degree certainty required were whether the student had thrown a recognizes the recurrent idea the law of through Agency rock a window. If the vagueness that “the Constitution does not finds that a student's acts contributed require impossible standards.” United disruption, way, to a the courts have no Petrillo, 1, 7-8, States v. determinations, short de noro factual ; 91 L.Ed. 1877 determining nature exact of the Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine, see Tile parties student’s conduct. The not supra, at 95 & n. 150. indicated that facts would be determined reviewing Disorderly tie “Sec. noro Even if 947.01. Conduct. court. were, however, following they Whoever does time and cost securing be fined not in the thus more than or $100 involved student’s imprisoned judicial days: fact-finding which could more than 30 cure public agency’s fact-finding might private place, In a en- defects in the violent, gages abusive, indecent, pro- well be such that deter a boisterous, fane, unreasonably loud, engaging from conduct student disorderly disruption. find under 1’IIEAA to be otherwise conduct cir- in which conduct cumstances provoke tends cause a disturb- example, 16. For if a claims his ance.” protected by conduct the First interference, Supreme Court, Amendment state 19. The v. New Winters judicial York, determination merits of depend large (1948), his will in suggested claim measure 92 that the L.Ed. 840 actually pur presence on his conduct was. If what absence of an intent or agency pose requirement factual determination binds tile should a crucial be may determining the the be as ef- courts in factor the definiteness fectively protection statutory language. cut off from the

1205 fairly plaintiffs will be warned as to A. Subsection misdemeanors moral tur- which involve vague allegedly segment of this pitude and thus the addi- occasion that allows PHEAA subsection is which sanction of loss aid tional of financial anyone deny aid of a convicted eligibility. turpi- involving moral “misdemeanor procedural posture The different rely that the fact tude.” Defendants on requires this case from Jordan us to take Court, pro- in its approach. Keyishian this different Cf. subject, that the on the held nouncement Regents, 589, v. Board of 87 turpi- involving phrase “crime moral Bag- (1965); L.Ed.2d S.Ct. 17 629 Immigration in the Act 1917 tude” gett Bullitt, supra. do not have We vague. unconstitutionally Jor- was not before an us individual accused vio- George, S.Ct. De 71 dan v. lating engaged a statute because he has (1951). L.Ed. That case 95 886 in certain conduct. here chal- Plaintiffs distinguishable from instant contro- lenge every aspect They of the statute. “signifi- versy. The it Court considered vague argue do not that the statute is so part phrase cant that has been they applied could not it have known immigration more than six- laws for argue particular They to a action. in- ty years.” at at 707. Id. vague that the statute that stead is so had held The Court noted that no case pro- do not know what actions are statutory vague phrase it scribed. previously phrase. Id. had construed the Ditter, course, dissent, is, Our brother in theoriz- at There defining term es that if term no such line of cases “misdemeanor volving turpi- turpitude” involving moral “misdemeanor moral a class includes sig- of crimes tude” under this statute.20 More about which men reasonable majority differ, nificantly, in seems could held uncon- Jordan cannot be vagueness grounds to have considered is- stitutional the determinative in this involving Key- Supreme Court, sue whether moral to be “crime action. The in unconstitutionally ishian, turpitude” prohibiting uncer- held a statute ut- particular in tain reference to a convic- terance of or seditious treasonable bar, doing In the "con- tion.21 case at we must word or the treasonable plaintiffs unconstitutionally sider not whether seditious act particular applied aware that a when crime involves to whom the act teachers turpitude,” sought declaratory injunctive “moral but whether relief. notice before an act it will Subsection done includes offenses penalized process, which “under violates due said: laws of the United Pennsylvania” phrase “Whatever in States or else ‘crime constitute mis turpitude’ involving turpitude. volving demeanor moral mean in Our moral cases, Pennsylvania peripheral make research disclosed no decided cases plain turpitude” in which that crimes which fraud was cases define “moral ingredient always regarded have contexts in other state statutes and involving turpitude. give moral We have be used to to the content phrase. recently ade far as stated that doubt as to the As we been able have discover, quacy standard federal the term of a less obvious to only law uses immigration does not render standard un laws. 8 cases U.S.C. * * vagueness 1182(a) 3251(a) *. have constitutional for We §§ present support in this Heard But there is no doubt found no the dicta in Rizzo, F.Supp. 720, (E.D.Pa. is the touchstone case. Fraud 281 742 “ * * * judged.” 1968) U.S. at this case should 341 appellate adopted Ramirez v. the stand at 708. courts S.Ct. Cf. many Immigration turpitude’ applied Naturaliza United States & ard of ‘moral Service, deporta U.S.App.D.C. 131, years the federal courts tion ” * * * proceedings. cert. denied F.2d tion L.Ed.2d See Doctrine, penal- Void-for-Vagueness Court, stating 21. The after also give izing supra, whicli due at n. 179. failed to ity applied phrase conduct had The Court conceded some seemed seditious, clearly empha capricious in their then hit would be but results “ * * * per- : The crucial considera at the core of what find most sized we just phrase: tion is that no teacher can know nicious in this is drawn ‘sedi where the line between “ * * * t debate over [I] [the tious’ and nonseditious utterances and morality of shows on some crimes] 599, acts.” at 87 S.Ct. at 681. grounds what treacherous we tread Baggett Bullitt, supra, See also when we undertake to translate ethical 369-370, 12 L.Ed. U.S. at concepts legal ones, by into case case. Cincinnati, 2d In Coates v. U.S. by condemning usually up We end all 29 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. personally disapprove that we and for Court held a stat disap- no better reason than that we vague unconstitutionally face ute on its ” * * prove it. Id. at by defendants even when it was attacked at S.Ct. prosecution, of whom a criminal one involved in was a student who had been turpitude” The term “moral tells argued The dissent demonstration. very us trigger little about what misdemeanors pointing does, much as the dissent here eligibil the loss of financial aid average compre “any out man ity. argument Defense counsel at oral hension should know that some kinds of admitted did he not know what a “mis by conduct” are covered the ordinance. involving turpitude” demeanor moral view, minority however, rec Even was, but said the courts did. In what ognized approach different parties term was an “authoritative pur called for when the at issue “statute application declaration of the stat ports regulate proscribe utes,” PHEAA Executive Director speech press protected by First replied question Reeher to the of a Amendment.” at Id. at university official who asked the mean conceded that in such 1691. The dissent involving of “misdemeanor moral involving rights, cases First Amendment turpitude”: challenge successfully a defendant could being unconstitutionally a statute as legal “This ais term which means that vague face, on its if conduct even his the misdemeanor is one which involves clearly proscribed statute. baseness, depravity vileness in the Alabama, See also Thornhill v. private and social a man duties which 84 L.Ed. 1093 society. something owes his It is im- turpitude When ask we what moral itself, irrespective moral in of the fact means, up we come with the same answer punished by that it is the law.” Jackson, as did Justices Black and essence, legislature therefore, Frankfurter in their dissent in Jordan: saying immoral misdemeanor “ * * * jf dictionaries, g0we £0^he subject will the student to the extra sanc- judge, the last resort of the baffled tion of If state loss financial aid. except expres- learn we little that the legislating morality, insists on we will redundant, turpitude sion is alone spell insist at least that it its moral out depravity means moral wickedness or code, particularly those affected where turpitude and moral seems mean genera- the statute are of a different morally little more than immoral. generally tion from the lawmakers and ” * * * (footnotes omitted) 341 share a somewhat different outlook at 71 S.Ct. at 709. phrase what is not moral. They pointed large involving turpi- out that the number “misdemeanor moral major- lower court cases cited tude” is so it is unconstitutional.

22. 341 239 n. U.S. at 71 S.Ct. 703. Agency, (2\) make warded to the we will Subsection B. * * a determination provides: This subsection Nowhere did PHEAA indicate the stand- deny may “(a) agency all forms it ards use to determine whether would any to student: of financial assistance disruption had occurred. a expelled, “(2) dis- Who has been might The loss which a student suffer ap- or an missed denied enrollment contributing “disruption” from to a is higher learning proved institution of The Third has rec- Circuit substantial. obey, after the for refusal effective ognized expulsion suspension or regulation act, or date of a lawful “may be, is from school well and often any higher order of edu- institution fact, a sanction than a more sever opinion cation, refusal, in the monetary relatively fine or a brief to a dis- contributed institution, imposed finement a court in a crim- activities, ruption administra- Dantinne, proceeding.” inal Falcone v. institution;” tion or classes of such (C.A.3, 1969). F.2d Pun- perfectly applica- plain that the It is may ishment more under this frequently (2) tion of will affect Scholarship is drastic. assistance activities, protected First Amendment his awarded where the student and as and rallies. such demonstrations family insufficient resources certainty no at Subsection meet educational costs at the institution impossible all. for a student Forty per of his cent of scholar- choice. may an consider know what institution ship recipients from come families given a disruption, a or whether $8,000 less. 1969- incomes In its to a dis-' course of conduct contributed pur- Report, 70 Annual PHEAA said the objective ruption. No standards have scholarship program pose “to of this basically guide what is been set forth to ‘tragic underdevelopment’ prevent hu- subjective as to a determination when an by providing man assist- talent financial disrupted, activity has been whether young people other- ance who to it. the student’s conduct contributed high- opportunity wise be denied the of a Indeed, University administra- Yale lending Praising er education.” March, 1970, wrote PHEAA tor asked, among cooperate in PHEAA’s stitutions which questions, “Still in other guaranty program up $1500, for loans a., by subparagraph what standards “Undoubtedly said, spirit PHEAA their made that a re- the determination to be making possible of service resulted disruption?” In fusal contributed to a begin for several thousand students to reply, Executive Reeher said: Director postsecondary their educa- continue “The determination of whether a re- tion.” ANNUAL REPORT Such disruption is to fusal contributed to a indicate that facts statements * * solely by the institution. be made eligibility aid loss of for financial intend to issue PHEAA does not college end, mean the education guidance of the institu- standards some students. tions in this connection.” Thus, heavy penalty depri inquiry a later to another answer eligibility vation of aid rides financial asking whether could be certain PHEAA university’s interpretation of words would have act un- universities any guiding without The stu standard. what der standard definition of consti- possibly dent could know what “disruption activities, ad- tutes opinion disruption in the of his ministration or of institutions” classes widely school, may vary opinion (sic), Reeher stated: and from institution to institution Agency partici- hopes statute, that all “The time to time. Under meaning pants “disruption” acquires only are familiar with the word However, phrase. meaning any given if of this there at institution doubt, given pertinent for- if facts tach sub- at time. The constitutionally stand delineated with what interference was section cannot prohibited and the terms indefiniteness. “obstruct” manifest the face of such “unreasonably” in combination with (a,) C. Subsection gave “interfere” some idea of the limits phrase as unconstitu attacked recently, however, of the word.25 More “any tionally vague subsection the term “interfere” has been held un in the course of offense committed disturbing, interfering constitutionally ap when it uncertain prevent with or peared limiting in less contexts. In * * language This has no Landry Daley, F.Supp. 968, 280 special or common law meani technical the court held unconstitutional ordi ng.23 fact, argues In defendant’s brief imposing nance a maximum fine $100 clarity “disturbing” “ * * * reading part, or shall in equating “disorderly it to conduct” and any way interfere with or hinder or proceeding upholding cases cite prevent policeman] him from dis [a phrase. definiteness of the latter There ** charging duty partially his purpose requirement24 is no intent or relying on the indefiniteness of “inter Reese, McAlpine such as that in 309 Ellington, fere.” In Baxter v. F. F.Supp. (E.D.Mich.1970) where the Supp. (E.D.Tenn.1970), court found the terms “disturbance” and vagueness court invalidated a statute on sufficiently “diversion” definite in grounds proscribing any act which requiring making statute their be with, “interferes or tends to interfere wilful or In malicious. an ordinance with, normal, orderly, peaceful, or requirement, with no such intent efficient conduct of the activities of proscription “making, court ruled * * campus aiding, countenancing assisting or in the ” * * * making of a ‘disturbance’ was suggest These considerations vague. unconstitutionally Landry v. “disturbing” that the terms and “inter Daley, F.Supp. (N.D.Ill.1968). fering” may unconstitutionally vague be The court focussed on the term in themselves. We not do decide “disturbance.” issue, terms, because we hold that these “interfering” upheld The term modifying in combination with the against challenge vagueness by phrase “in the of” course make the sub Supreme pro- Court where a unconstitutionally section A uncertain. * * * “picketing hibited might such a assumption natural legislature be that unreasonably manner as to obstruct or intended to reach offenses ingress egress directly interfere with free related to the “disturbance” * * * * * * county and from “interference” either aas cause or an * * courthouses Cameron v. Yet, element of the “disturbance.” Johnson, language rationally can be read reaching any offense, Unlike cautious student as phrase us, narrowly before that statute such as a traffic violation26 or failure many opinions dealing 23. 23, supra. one of its 24. See note vagueness, sug- with Court 23, supra. note See gested might several factors which courts determining might consider in how definite stat- That such minor law violations utory language (1) (3)’s pro- was: Whether be included in subsection purpose suggested by “any tent or was an element of the hibition is the use of statutory violation; (2) here, Whether offense” whereas subsection challenged begins language clause has technical or with the same meaning; exception common law Whether with the that PIIEAA’s any light meaning authority deny as to the clause’s can aid confined to con- gained from the section as a whole viction criminal “a offense.” The appears. application or from the section in which it PHEAA forms loan York, scholarship applicant Winters v. New aid instruct juvenile report 68 92 L.Ed. 840 that he need not offenses fore, card, when First Amendment freedoms possess his draft threatened, here, as is the case “disturbance.” temporally related to this .government regulate ap- area in the phrase “in the course of” “only specificity.”' stages planning event with narrow NAACP for an ply to the Button, supra, university at activities. which “disturbs” phrase can- S.Ct. 328. that this conclude We do not constitutionally statutes.’ used in (1) punishes Subsection phrase is when We do conclude only students who have committed context, in combination used in this certain crimes. criminal conduct Since terms, indefinite the subsection other Constitution, protected is not satisfy the strict standard fails to problem there. there is no overbreadth certainty is re- which constitutional quired (a) (3) there- is here. Subsection (a) (2) Subsection does vague. unconstitutionally

fore present problems. serious overbreadth private university Since a is not bound

III. OVERBREADTH by the Fourteenth Amendment to refrain sub interfering Plaintiffs also attack from Amendment First being (a) (3) un freedoms,27 to as university regulation sections a which constitutionally doctrine overbroad. prohibits The engaging in a student from govern requires that “a of overbreadth activities which would be constitutional prevent purpose to ly mental control or protected may from state interference constitutionally subject to state Similarly, activities requirement be lawful. regulation may by means not be achieved that the student’s conduct has con sweep unnecessarily broadly which disruption university a tributed to thereby protected invade activities, the area of opinion in the institu supra, Koota, freedoms.” Zwickler v. tion, guarantee does not that con 250, 396; 389 at 88 at NAACP U.S. S.Ct. constitutionally unprotected duct will be Alabama, 288, 307, v. 377 84 S.Ct. against U.S. action.28 state state Since 1302, 12 L.Ed.2d 325 directly deny eligibility cannot a student evaluating reach, a con statute’s we must because his exercise of First Amend potential just sider its rights, see, g., Randall, effects not Speiser ment e. v. proven Button, effects. 518-519, See NAACP v. 2 415, 432, (1958), L.Ed.2d 9 so L.Ed.2d it do 1460 cannot (1963); Alabama, 405 indirectly by tagging NAACP v. 357 that denial onto university U.S. 78 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. 2 determination which principle respect rights. 1488 The of over- not bound There breadth, vagueness, fore, like regardless that shows (a) (2) of whether the courts’ concern applied threat of constitutional as to students may sanctions expelled by deter subject of con exercise con universities potently stitutional against freedoms as as the stitutional act strictures state application actual ion,29 unconstitutionally sanctions. There- it is overbroad protected minor traffic violations which resulted the First We Amendment. n fine of less than $25. discussed above nature of “disruption.” many term different See, g., Wagner 27. e. Coleman v. Col reasonably meanings at- which could be lege, (C.A.2, 1970) ; F.2d 429 phrase tached to leave substantial (C.A. Mitchell, Browns 409 F.2d 593 activity swept protected room for be 1969) ; Bright Isenbarger, F. eategoi’ized up contributing to as Supp. (N.D.Ind.1970) ; 13S2 Common disruption. F.Supp. Brown, wealth Pa. v. (E.D.Pa.1967). 787-788 (2) (a) feel We do not that subsection See, g., Gregory City Chicago, expelled applies e. from as it students private 22 L.Ed.2d U.S. is severable so universities peaceful where march remain in the statute could riot, yet expelled apply only near to be uni- caused a was held to students fering orderly preventing”

in that sanction a student with or engaging constitutionally university. protected duct of the cautious student, activity. well unwit- aware that he acts many ways might tingly in (3) presents Subsection categorized g., (e. as offenses failure to problem. a different clear that the carry card, littering, etc.), his draft will deny eligibility state for financial could shy away from actions which any any aid to student convicted of- disturbing characterized as inter- However, fense. if a statute aid denied fering orderly with the conduct of the student who was convicted of university, and thus will be deterred offense “in committed the course of from First Amendment activities which protesting government policies,” we might descriptions. fall within those unconstitutional, would hold it since precisely against This is the result obviously attempt indirect principle attempts of overbreadth punish speech. state to free Plain- guard. supra, Button, See NAACP v. allege (3) occupies tiffs at 83 S.Ct. 328. Since ground middle as a statute which sweeps broadly subsection so speech trigger include free as a protected to invade the area of First imposed sanctions in addition to those freedoms, Amendment it is unconstitu- solely for the offense itself. Since the tionally overbroad. hazy terms “disturb” and “interfere” may naturally be construed to include various sorts of student activities which (b) IV. SECTION constitutionally protected,30 are (3) (a) permit subject does the state students We have decided that subsec (a) (2) additional (3) sanctions for an tions offense and are uncon solely stitutionally the basis of First Amendment and overbroad and activity. losing part (1) student is the his subsection of eligibility financial aid involving under includes a “misdemeanor moral turpitude” offense, vague. because he unconstitutionally committed an (a) (1), but Since because law the offense occur- mandates the severability red statute,31 “in disturbing, the course of of this sections inter- required ham, versities 394 U.S. to abide the Four (1969) ; teenth 22 L.Ed.2d Amendment. There Davis v. Fran is no indica cois, language (C.A.5, 1968) tion in statute, the F.2d of the nor in legislative history (“[Plcaccful, orderly history the demonstrations can of simply legisla PHEAA that not be would restricted indicate because * * * ”). ture would desire create disturbances differentiate between the classes of schools. See 46 Pa.Stat. Pennsylvania’s statutory Construction Ann. § 555. Even if we were to find the applications Act states: severable, of the subsection is not clear it would be suffi every provisions “The of law shall be ciently applied public narrow as uni any provision If a law severable. versities. There have been indications be un- is found a court of record to activity protected which would be remaining void, constitutional against direct state interference provisions shall, of the law neverthe- regulated by First Amendment could be valid, less, court remain unless state universities in the name of univer provisions of the law finds valid sity discipline. See, g., e. Tinker v. Des essentially inseparably are so Independent Community Moines School with, depend upon, nected and so District, 503, 505, 507-509, 393 U.S. pre- provision, void cannot 512-514, 89 S.Ct. Legislature would have en- sumed (1969) ; Esteban v. Central Missouri provisions remaining valid acted the College, (C.A.8, State 415 F.2d 1077 ones; the void or unless without 1969) (Blackmun, .1.). pro- remaining valid finds court See, g., Gregory City Chicago, incomplete standing alone, visions, e. supra; City Birming- being incapable Shuttlesworth executed and are remain, (d) legal (b), (c) judgment. Moore, as does 6 J. Cf. statutes, segment (a) of both (2d 1966). of section Federal Practice 56.16 ed. ¶ which now reads: protects The Fourth Amendment “(a) agency deny “right people all forms of the to be secure in their persons, houses, effects, assistance to student: papers, financial by any against is convicted court Who unreasonable searches * * minds, record of a criminal offense which seizures In our resolu- plaintiffs’

was committed after the effective date tion of claims this area which, act under turn of this the laws on a determination of whether the Pennsylvania, United seizure States institution’s records of a felony.” compelled by constitute the statute is rea- sonable. The Court has been plain- must We therefore treat particularly sensitive to the need to (b) tiffs’ contention that section violates balance interests to determine rea- the Fourth and Amendments and Fifth sonableness of a search when the chal- unconstitutionally overbroad. Since lenged search has not been of the usual major part section involving police sort seizing evidence of statute, stricken from all Wyman James, crime. See university (b) must do under section 27 L.Ed.2d 414- furnish PHEAA with the name and ad- (1971); Court, Municipal Camara v. dress of student of whom it has 523, 536-538, knowledge that he has been convicted L.Ed.2d 930 The Court felony. of a Camara centered its discussion of rea- report Plaintiffs claim that the sonableness around the issuance of a war- ing section violates the students’ Fifth inspections rant dwellings for area right Amendment to incriminate and said: long themselves must fail. “ So as sub * * * Unfortunately, there can be sections and have been ready determining no test for reasona- statute, stricken from the bleness [of other than search] “compelled”32 authorization which the balancing against the need to search gives university student is to forward the invasion which the search entails. regarding felony information has his ” * * * 536-537, 387 U.S. at institution, convictions to PHEAA. The at 1735 course, may report such information proof us, Given the state of the before whether the student authorizes it or necessary we cannot make the balance not. determine the reasonableness search. We know that invasion here allegations Plaintiffs’ that sec is not so serious as the search of a (b) compels tion an unconstitutional home, proof but we have no as to papers seizure of their and effects and exact nature invasion. that the subsection is overbroad cannot importantly, plaintiffs summary succeed More on this motion for judgment argued that because we do not need have suffi state no undisputed information, “search” cient for this facts on which since it has to base legislative with accordance intent.” subsection should thus be severed from 40 Pa.Stat.Ann. the rest of the statute. § 555. State Cf. Legislative history Chiropractic Board of and content of Examiners v. Life leg- Fellowship, itself indicate that Pa. 272 A.2d 478 islature wanted students had who com- reported mitted felonies to be PHEAA. express opinion We The statute not as broad as it was no as to whether provisions, “compelled” the unconstitutional but such authorization so as with complete, any independent to invalidate it as a waiver of Fifth stands legislative rights. Amendment makes sense and accords segments intent. The unconstitutional ideas, particularly in the academic for discover- of community. superior means alternative ” * * * Sweezy felony v. New any Plaintiffs conviction. Hampshire, statute, 28 U.S.C. U.S. § to a have directed us 534, (em- 1 L.Ed.2d the United provides that phasis added). Attorney collect shall General States ex- records and identification crime As we indicated above in our discussion change state of- with authorized them reiterates, overbreadth, Sweezy and as However, there is no evidence ficials. chilling proof we not need of actual do to the extensiveness us as before effect in order find a statute over- system general nature of However, we do not have in sec- broad. that statute. under established have been impairment (b) the tion same clear-cut enable us facts sufficient Without speech free or free association governmental intelligently balance Keyishian existed cases such as interests, private cannot deter- we Regents, supra, Board Tucker, Shelton alleged mine reasonableness and thus we must search and seizure L.Ed.2d the courts where summary deny plaintiffs’ motion struck down statutes as overbroad be- judgment on this issue. tendency cause of their unmistakable chill. There is no such unmistakable tendency The same lack of facts mandates the (b). Felony under section con- allegation plaintiffs’ same result as to public record and are matter victions (b) section is overbroad that it report any the student must chills their exercise First Amendment application for victions to PHEAA on his argue freedoms. Plaintiffs penalty financial aid under of another requirement university report felony conviction. See 24 Pa.Stat.Ann. § felony conviction within its 5104(9). pressures will Such outside knowledge university means that all markedly reduce the likelihood that personnel report any will have to stu- felony trying to student will be hide a dent conviction of which learn. relatively conviction. While we can be This, they say, will “chill” the student- certain that students who those relationship teacher associational hiding felony deterred will be convictions interchange curtail the free of ideas in discussing them, pre- cannot we community. the academic carry sume over deterrence will said, The Court has in as- topics.33 into discussions of other sessing constitutionality of another difficulty Not do we have information-gathering scheme: on the estimating of the record before us state “ * * * particularly important (b) really It is whether section any effect, power chilling that the exercise of the of com- does have we have pulsory process carefully estimating difficulty circum- substantial government investigative acquiring process scribed infor when the interest in highly impinge upon felony tends to this mation of convictions in manner, speech sensitive areas for the reasons outlined above as freedom of press, political plaintiffs’ or tion, in our discussion of Fourth freedom of associa- there are Amendment claims.34 freedom of communication Where require give plaintiffs 33. We a feel for the like realize that would us better prove directly speech lihood that and association that a with an some un- by reported felony might be deterred the statute. conviction be de- would Cf. Kennedy Co., discussing terred v. Silas Mason 334 U.S. other matters openly 249, 256-257, might unreasonable, 92 L.Ed. in that 68 S.Ct. no such student will come to so tes- forward tify charged when he could be with a above, felony report fact, 34. An not mentioned failure to this on his additional might clarify proof proof application. However, PHEAA further which application by parties of PHEAA’s can be introduced both effectiveness orderly overbroad, activities, allegations conduct of the adminis- probable tration or an classes of institution of able to determine we must be higher speech, association education. on deterrent effect must protected and we other activities or (b) higher Each institution of educa- government’s to determine be able immediately tion shall furnish to the in the intrusion interest agency, any the name and stu- address of justify potential deterrence. See dent who is a resident of the Common- 449, 461, Alabama, NAACP expelled, wealth of who is (1958); 1163, 2 L.Ed.2d 1488 dismissed or denied enrollment for the Ass’n, I. O. C. American Communications (2) reasons set forth clause sub- Douds, (a) section of this section or of whom the cannot make We 94 L.Ed. 925 higher institution education has necessary on those determinations knowledge that he convicted of has been thus us and of the facts before basis (1) offenses set as forth clauses deny plaintiffs’ for sum must motion (3) of subsection of this section. mary ground judgment well. (c) Nothing in this section shall be un- contentions of Plaintiffs’ other any construed to limit freedom essentially constitutionality are mooted expression student to verbal of individual by major part of our decision that opinions. views or unconstitutionally section (d) Any higher institution of learn- need overbroad. We therefore agree- which refuses an to execute treat them here. agency comply ment with the (b) subsection of this section shall APPENDIX A approved denied the status of an institu- Ineligibility assistance 5104.1 loan provisions “§ tion under the of this act.” agency deny all forms Denial 5158.2 assistance “§ any of financial financial assistance to student: (1) by any is convicted court Who agency deny forms all record of a criminal offense which any financial assistance to student: of this committed after the effective date (1) isWho convicted court of which, act under the laws of United record of a criminal offense which was Pennsylvania, States or would con- committed after the effective date of involving moral stitute misdemeanor which, this act under the laws of turpitude felony; or or Pennsylvania, United States expelled, Who has dismissed involving constitute a misdemeanor moral approved denied enrollment an in- turpitude felony; or a higher learning stitution for refusal obey, act, expelled, after the effective date of this Who has been dismissed regulation approved lawful in- or denied or order of enrollment higher higher education, learning stitution stitution of which of for refusal refusal, institution, obey, opinion in to after the of the effective date of this act, regulation any disruption contributed to a lawful or of of order activities, higher education, institution of administration or classes of refusal, institution; opinion institution, such in or of disruption to contributed of (3) any Who has been convicted in activities, administration or of classes any court of record offense committed of institution; such or “disturbing, interfering in the course of preventing, attempt with or (3) or in an to any Who has been in convicted disturb, prevent interfere with or any court of record of offense committed procedure garnering victions, information of all this would reflect on the state’s felony applicants. report university convictions of student need to such rarely If students fail to list their con- information. DITTER, Judge (dissenting). interfering disturbing, District course of in the attempt to in an preventing, or with or respectfully for the follow- I dissent prevent disturb, or with interfere ing reasons: activities, adminis- orderly of conduct uphold to construed Statutes should be of an institution of classes tration or possible. constitutionality whenever their higher education. majority ap- question has whether the I precept proached this case with higher educa- (b) institution of Each mind. immediately to furnish tion shall any stu- agency, legislative plan and address of part the name to act is of This by delegating the Common- higher of support is a resident who dent education expelled, agency. iswho powers of to an administrative wealth though for the interpreted or denied enrollment it as dismissed not should be sub- licensing in clause of penal forth reasons set statute. were a section, or of whom this of section morality concept not so of higher has education the institution vague to a misdemeanor that reference knowledge that he has been convicted pro- involving turpitude denies the moral (1) and in clauses offenses as set forth process. of due tection section. of this subsection referring disruption Language with, disturbance, interference Nothing (c) in this section shall orderly prevention affairs of an limiting prejudicing the construed higher learning institution any prerogatives of institu- in context and when tested higher to institute tion education process. requirements of due disciplinary carry independent, out an existing overbreadth, au- proceeding pursuant considering including law, thority, but practice, majority adopted re- an overkill has award, continue to refusal to sponse not limited the re- which is unwarranted any any assistance any chilling or extend possibility financial effect mote any misconduct individual because First Amendment freedoms. adversely judgment bears Finally, I believe that this statute assistance, fitness his susceptible of a that would construction further, nothing section shall be in this questions. I avoid constitutional freedom of construed to limit ruling upon would therefore abstain expression individual student to verbal involved after the issues here until opinions. views or passed upon the state have been courts. higher Any (d) learn- institution agree- an should construed which refuses to execute Statutes I. constitutionality uphold their agency comply ment with the (b) of this section shall subsection completely case, majority In this approved institu- denied the status of principle” overlooks the “cardinal provisions of this act.” possible,

tion under the statutes should be whenever uphold their constitu- as to construed so 5158.2, P.L. § 24 Pa.Stat.Ann. § Vuitch, tionality: United States (December 18, 1969), has referred L.Ed.2d throughout litigation Pa. as 24 equally of state This is true 5158.1, way it Stat.Ann. which was § legislation, and the Court appeared pocket part of in the 1970 frequently not assume said that will An- Purdon’s Statutes will construe its laws advance that a state bring with the them into conflict notated. so as to 1404, 1400, Photographs, Thirty-Seven (37) 28 L.Ed. 91 S.Ct. 1. United States v. (1971). 822 2d

1215 8-6, Oil, Agency, usually Local No. to as Federal anee referred Constitution: Interna and Atomic Workers PHEAA. Chemical Missouri, Union, 361 tional AFL-CIO 25,1970, September As of PHEAA had 391, 396, L.Ed. U.S. 80,599 scholarship made for the awards 2d 373 year amounting 1970-71 academic to Although $49,627,840, not be 48,349 a should and had there been guaranteed “slight implication” totalling and loans $54,384,270. on validated Nestor, Flemming “vague conjecture”, 240,731 program’s inception, Since the 1367, 1376, 603, 617, amounting $225,612,683 student loans U.S. to majority guaranteed. guide L.Ed.2d 1435 To PHEAA, legislature guide- just opposite It has taken tack. created context, language, ignored Thus, and lines stretched are standards. there hypotheticals eligibility relied to certain requirements, on whimsical includ- ing citizenship, residency, achieve its results. educational at- tainment, continuity, and enrollment. part legislative plan II. a Act applicant The qualifica- must meet the higher education, to need, tions finance of financial character and penal statute. promise, academic well as as academic achievement, established PHEAA.4 majority opinion holds that sub- (a) (1), (a) (2), and sections provides The statute that a scholar- vague— are void are because their terms ship recipient may attend institution process so violate the due approved by to PHEAA. Awards are clause Constitution. regard creed, color, race, made without to my judgment sex, the basic mistake origin, ancestry, national majority money makes to treat may room, tuition, be used for though they board, books, these subsections2 as were and fees. A student statutes, subject narrow, criminal to five-year work-study enroll in either a precise Actually, they program construction. are four-year or a course. A stu- thing. no such These subsections are dent who is unable to suffi- demonstrate part legislative plan provide of a to year may cient financial in need one college apply financial assistance for subsequent students. years. Provision process require- A consideration of due made for PHEAA to allocate funds begins examining ments categories: the exact per- potential one based government nature function formance, per- another on need and actual private well involved as as Goldberg Kelly, interest formance, degree third on the to be affected: 397 need. PHEAA is allowed discretion 254, 263, the amount to be awarded to a student L.Ed.2d 287 adjust also the time limits al- legisla- loan-repayments. lowed for Pennsylvania’s plan help provide ed- ture realized that there opportunities ucational residents its applications. empowered fraudulent began loan-guarantee in 1963 with a investigate misrepresenta- PHEAA to program. expanded This provided penalties. tions and criminal provide able, support scholarship needy, capable, deserving students.3 Involved in this suit is another section Day day operations guide programs of both enacted PHEAA the exercise managed by agency, discretion, are a state of begins, a section which agency may Pennsylvania Higher deny “The forms Education Assist- all January 25, 1966, really acts, 2. 3. Act of P.L. There two both but provisions. § Section P.S. have the same refers One guarantee plan a loan and the other January P.L. 4. Act of scholarship program. amended, § Section P.S. 1216 ” * * * (em- agency in deter- administrative

of financial assistance mining added). Plainly dollars should phasis are not whether tax these grant particular to a or made proscription, awarded a of of but words who penal available to another student statute. This is not a discretion. 5 “prohibition” sec- not assistance. These in this otherwise receive no There penal are not in nature. The “heavy penalty” words legislature no There is tion. “trig- necessity demon- nothing will which perfectly strated that knew well how ger” There aid. the loss of financial penal legislation doing enact so parallel” this statute between no “obvious regard applications to false jail provide or for fines and those which pretenses. disorderly fraudulent Penal statutes peace breach attempt a direct those make which conduct.8 limit license exercise of constitu- Rather, parallel is to Title the obvious greater preci- require freedoms tional Law enacted October V of Public 16, 90-575 guidelines created sion than do the 1968, act 1060. This U.S.C. § legislative body for an administrative years provides period that for a two given agency. legislation should Such assist- student shall receive financial no meaning, bearing a fair in mind the government if he ance from federal Magnolia purpose of the act: Black v. involving convicted of a crime Liquor Company, S.Ct. force, disruption, or of institu- seizure Courts L.Ed.2d 5 property or stu- tion so that officials should not assume that an administrative engaging prevented dents are agency will its discretion im- exercise pursuing their studies. their duties Sons, Seagram properly: Joseph E. & provided suspension is same The Hostetter, Inc. v. obey wilfully refuse to students who 1261-1262, 16 L.Ed.2d 336 regulation or of an educa- lawful order delegated validity discretionary if refusal is of a tional institution powers upon does not rest enumera- sub- nature and contributes serious precise specific tion of standards disruption the administra- stantial guiding Baker, United factors: States apparent It is tion of the institution. Cir., 1970). (7th 429 F.2d Pennsylvania legislature relied that the dispense PHEAA must millions of Congressional heavily prior enact- on taxpayer’s money dollars of and choose although withholding ment made the among applicants thousands are discretionary than of mandatory. rather assistance “deserving” likely and which are most provi- Even identical help Pennsyl- the Commonwealth of sion, “Nothing in this section shall be vania “achieve its economic and full limit construed to freedom persons potential” social because expression student to verbal of individual part of “character”. Viewed as a legislative plan aof opinions,” views or is found both money, to allocate state parallel, but Another less statutes. question the subsections in do offend obvious, 89-358, found in Law Public requirements process. of due 1675. enacted March 38 U.S.C. § provides assistance educational morality concept III. The if veterans shall be discontinued vague. is not unsatisfactory there is conduct based regular practices oí standards and reaching its decision almost the institution. all of subsection is unconstitutional- (cid:127) vague, ly majority considers the says of- words this court subparagraph: guide terms in each process various fend due intended to were page majority opinion, page 7. 1206. 5. See See footnote page 8. See pages analysis, Compare 6. See 1207-1208. p. 1203. holding, explaining the Court also its “disruption”, In turpitude”,

“moral interfering prevent- “disturbing, said: ing.” held that times We have several determining difficulty in analyzed whether “moral first to be The marginal are within offenses certain con- in the turpitude,” used language meaning under at- the of the text, automatically vague does not tack as may deny agency all forms The unconstitutional render a statute any student: of financial assistance * * * Impossible indefiniteness. re- specificity are not standards court 1. Who is convicted * * * * * quired. whether The test of a offense of record criminal sufficiently language conveys the

which, laws of the United under the warning proscribed as to the definite Pennsylvania, States by common measured conduct when involving stitute a misdemeanor * * * ” * * * understanding practices. (em- turpitude moral phasis added) test has been conclude that this We the else satisfied here. Whatever majority correctly interprets the The turpi- involving phrase moral ‘crime involving moral words “misdemeanor cases, peripheral mean in tude’ turpitude” to mean misdemeanor plain that crimes decided cases make volving immorality, says that then but ingredient have in fraud was an immorality concept is not one that regarded involving always been precision process has which due recently turpitude. moral We requires. adequacy of stated that doubt as to in cases does a standard less obvious holding. No cases are cited for unconstitu- not render that standard Instead, placed reliance is on dissent * * * vagueness. tional for George, in Jordan v. De (1951), a ease 95 L.Ed. 886 turpitude” used was The term “moral involving deportation an alien. in used at common has been law and ruling Jordan, however, precise in by many the states. statutes enacted turpitude” was that the term “moral was glut on are a of decisions There in Im- and that its use Although subject.9 inconsistencies some migration did not offend constitu- Act marginal areas, appear the sheer requirements. In Ramirez tional weight certainty as to of eases lends Immigration and Naturali- United States sampling many A random offenses. Service, U.S.App.D.C. zation conspiracy, abortion, adultery, shows Appeals F.2d 405 Court fraud, extortion, keeping embezzlement, held that the District of Columbia receiving house, larceny, disorderly challenge turpi- “moral to the term evasion, property, and the use stolen tax grounds vagueness tude” always have been of the mails to defraud foreclosed Jordan. involving turpi- moral held to offenses Court denied certiorari: hand, carrying other tude. On the L.Ed.2d 226 deadly weapon and drunken concealed driving have held not to be. been Jordan, that “moral it was observed course, law, concerned with Of we turpitude” deep has has roots variety would constitute those offenses which interpreted been in a of factual involving turpitude moral part situations, misdemeanors long and has' language laws of the United States or statutory under of the United States. require references to additional uses are cross more than and Phrases 9. Words words, parts, plus pocket pages, to list defining there term—and the cases many Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania, improper establish like entertainment” states, legislated of ments licensed field other Bar, Liquor In Tahiti through and Control Board. criminal10 morals both 355, 150 Case, Pennsyl- Liquor Pa. Inc. License 395 licensing courts of laws. The (1959), these held that con- A.2d 112 it was laws to be vania have found these stitutional, satisfy vague the to terms were not too requirements despite attack that the agreed, Amend vague. of the Fourteenth court has were This Supreme appeal the Court Supreme certiorari ment. An has denied the Court per was dismissed for States of the United or affirmed curiam. question, a federal want of substantial 1953, 3, example, of For the Act June 159, 85, 116 4 L.Ed.2d 361 U.S. 80 4532, a 277, makes P.L. 18 P.S. § (1959). corrupt morals of misdemeanor to any the legislated Congress in the has also Randall, child. In Commonwealth morality,11 the extent of field even to of (1957), Pa.Super. 603, A.2d place making it or unlawful indecent citing Jordan, Court, Superior re the jected packages.12 materials on tobacco immoral argument the word cases, many In view of state and well-settled “morals” had no definite Jordan, Supreme holding in Court’s meaning. Supreme The Court Ramirez, in recent refusal of certiorari certiorari, denied 355 U.S. United States Pennsylvania appellate rulings in (1958). 539, 2 78 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d Tahiti, Supreme Court’s Randall Rizzo, recently F. More in Heard both, hold- in our refusal of certiorari three-judge Supp. 741-742 a Supreme Court’s in Heard and the panel to Randall court referred case, per I am curiam affirmance of ease,” as a “landmark noted references majority put hard to understand how “generally accepted moral standards turpitude” say the term “moral can community” “common stand vague is under of the United the laws morality,” said, “The Penn ards Pennsylvania. or States sylvania Superior in Court Randall con argument, ‘Corrupting If assume for the sake of cluded we that the the Morals however, question a sufficiently that there a Minor’ clear statute was about whether some misdemeanor and definite to meet test of constitu immorality not, it agree volves or does not tionality. We in view the above ques- follow that interpretation subsection here of this statute forth As set tioned is unconstitutional. af courts.” This case was George, supra, De per Court, Jordan v. firmed curiam the 20 L.Ed.2d times held that have several We determining difficulty in whether Pennsylvania Liquor marginal Section 493 of the are within certain offenses Code, April 12, 1951, language the Act of meaning P.L. at- under “lewd, immoral, prohibits vague automatically 47 P.S. 4-493 § tack does not Pennsylvania’s V, 1463, 1464, 10. Article Penal Code is a crime to 1465. 24, 1939, import Act June P.L. immoral articles into United 4501, etc., 18 P.S. § entitled States: 19 U.S.C. consti- § Of- Against tutionality recently Public Morals and De- of this statute was fenses cency. crimes, upheld Thirty-Seven Included are 32 some of United States v. (37) Photographs, which are felonies and of which some are misdemeanors. Aliens have a crime in- who been convicted of woman, transport 11. It a crime a volving turpitude before admis- moral woman, coerce a or coerce a minor sion shall from the United be excluded go place place Interstate Com- 1182(a) States, 8 U.S.C. § debauchery, prostitution, merce for deported committing crime a practice: other immoral 18 U.S.C. §§ 1251(4). admission, § after 8 U.S.C. 2421, 2422, and 2423. There are statutes obscenity: 5723(e). §§ U.S.C. § 26 U.S.C. activities, or classes administration unconstitutional render * * * of such institution.” indefiniteness. says majority recently, idea has been the same More way will no because a student concurring opinion expressed in a to know an institution consider what There, Vuitch, supra. United States given disruption whether charged violating a Dis- doctor course conduct contributed to a dis- which makes trict of Columbia statute addition, majority ruption. “the same were a crime unless abortion states: necessary preservation of done as for ap¡- perfectly plain “It is health.” Dis- the mother’s life or plication frequently will af- 1032, Court, F.Supp. dismissed trict 305 protected fect First Amendment grounds that the indictment on the activities, and such as demonstrations unconstitutionally word “health” was rallies.” reversed, vague. Supreme Court holding the has been and word should majority puts into Here a rabbit psycho- interpreted to both be logical to refer the hat. well-being, physical and While that all First Amend- it is true physicians routinely upon called are rights occupy ment a favored status concerning patient’s a make decisions are and rallies demonstrations health, and that the term was therefore frequently forum in those concurring, vague. In Mr. not Justice exercised, Court average pointed out no one of White perfectly that demon- has made it clear telligence could under believe strations rallies are not them- abortions not dictated health protected v. Barker selves activities: legal. Thus, considerations were even if 1009, 905, Hardway, 89 U.S. S.Ct. 394 the term “health” unconstitutional- (1969). 22 L.Ed.2d 217 ly vague, the void statute would right on is face a because reaches class There is no constitutional meaning in which near a court house cases of “health” hold a demonstration irrelevant, possible proscribes cases in which no a statute which violation of vagueness problem designed arise. to interfere with could conduct He justice: a cluded that record, Cox State the absence factual administration v. 562-563, vagueness 559, Louisiana, 85 the claim of should be 379 U.S. 479-480, dismissed. 13 L.Ed.2d 487 S.Ct. Picketing parading are (1965). (a) a Subsection reaches class of though subject regulation inter even persons cases about which of reasonable expression and association: twined with intelligence could not differ.13 There- Johnson, Cameron 390 U.S. fore, majority in the vast there will be 20 L.Ed.2d possible vagueness, no subsec- (1968). tion should held unconstitutional application. on basis of some factual a A demonstration does not throw activity. illegal immunity around

cloak of O’Brien, United States “Disruption" IV. not a term. 367, 88 S.Ct. provides for the defendant was convicted Subsection may burning during deny demon- card PHEAA assistance his draft financial expelled against war in student has been stration Vietnam. who out, obey regulation pointed “This refusal to “a lawful or Chief Justice Warren higher ‘speech’ order of tion, educa- Court held that when institution of has refusal, opinion ‘non-speech’ in the are combined in the on elements conduct, sufficiently institution, disruption to a same contributed course example, corrupting 13. For the morals a child law. a conviction under regulat- governmental learning important higher interest Most institutions of justify non-speech published regulations element can have rules and provide Amend- prospective limitations on First incidental which will judging ment with a ceptable freedoms.” basis for the limits of ac- significant conduct. To be so intended to communi- Not all conduct concerned, expulsion far as PHEAA protected the Constitu- cate an idea is Among things, must be “lawful.” other speaker not incite a crowd tion. A that means that the institution must York, v. New Feiner riot: procedures have followed its own L.Ed. S.Ct. which the student full notice. epithets, the so- Abusive expel expel require To or not to “fighting words”, are not with- called subjective judgment certain amount of protection of the Constitution: part Subjective on the of the institution. California, 15, Cohen v. decisions, however, always been the 29 L.Ed.2d stuff of education. Based institu- Obscenity is not: United States objective tional decisions which have no Thirty-Seven (37) Photographs, supra. standards, artists, some men become aimed at is not while Subsection others are directed to commerce or demonstrations, speech. discretion, rallies or free even Disciplinary the law. disrupt is, power It is at those who would aimed to decide when others, process those activities disrupted educational have been so out, out, expulsion warranted, throw or burn who would drown is does not seem “ * * * by beyond expertise out. the student conduct foreseeable or basic * * * * * * any fairness. which for reason materially disrupts class work or involves separate So far as six federal student substantial disorder or invasion of the programs concerned,14 assistance are course, is, im- of not of others Congress has made the educational in- guarantee munized the constitutional judge stitution acceptable the sole speech.” Des freedom of Tinker v. agree conduct and behavior. I .that to do Community Independent Moines School logical. so is I believe that the institu- 733, District, high majority tion’s decisions in a (emphasis fair, just, cases will be and in accord- added) process. ance with the standards of due I (a) (2) would hold that subsection is pro- (c) Subsection facially applied void. If is ever vides, “Nothing in this section shall be way PHEAA, in an unconstitutional any construed to limit the freedom of reviewing court can correct the admin- expression student to verbal of individual istrative error. Therefore, opinions.” views or inhibition to First Amendment freedoms any—from —if subsection “Disturb, prevent” V. with or interfere those which transcend the written and vague are not in when used reference spoken word. in- Subsection orderly conduct affairs of disrupts (the forms a student that he if higher stitutions education. word Tinker) that is used in conduct goes beyond expression verbal (3) provides Subsection activities of the institution which has deny he PHEAA financial assistance chosen any attend to the extent student “who has been convicted expels him, he lose his financial court of record of offense com- support Pennsylvania. disturbing, is There mitted in the course of inter- * * * nothing vague expulsion fering preventing about from col- with or lege. definite, drastic, It is orderly activities, final. conduct of the admin- §,

14. 20 U.S.C. 1060 and 38 § 1675. U.S.C.

1221 amended, 1939, P.L. 18 P.S. of an institution of § classes istration or higher education.” phrase The also used majority word “interfere” is holds statute, “any another federal 29 158 in the course committed U.S.C. § offense referring (1), interfering prevent- prac- disturbing, labor to unfair ” ** * vague unconstitutionally tices. In that has held context it collision, clash, special language no mean to come

because the meaning. opposition, pur- at How- be to run cross technical ever, law or common poses: Exchange frequent- NLRB v. operative Parts Com- words 1962). pany, (5th individually ly inor other 304 F.2d Cir. been construed combinations. County Coppedge v. Franklin Board Education, F.Supp. (E.D.N. into to throw dis “Disturb” means McNair, Car.1967), appropriate Court stated or confusion: State order steps prevent should be taken to interfer Neb. 135 N.W.2d order, distract, explaining with the ence to interfere with its there was It means to intimidation, right. “harassment, enjoyment no of a lawful meaning: acts, threats, of common State word hostile words or and sim Davis, App.2d 257 N.E.2d ilar behavior.” Ohio “interrupt (1969). The words People Toro, Del 155 Colo. not to un have been held and disturb” P.2d 357 that “interfere” holds vague. constitutionally used in When is not uncertain term but school, conjunction at a with activities generally well-defined understood. ordinary person intelli warn a hinder, “prevent” means to word gence against interfering substantially check, impede, from, frustrate, stop, keep operation program: its and State with keep happening or exist thwart or from Wiggins, v. N.C. 272 158 S.E.2d Equitable : Life Assurance Walker v. denied, (1967), 42 cert. Society S., F.Supp. 306, 308 of U. 123 (E.D.Ill.1954). of is a word common F.Supp. McAlpine Reese, 136 understanding: International Parts Cor prohib- (E.D.Mich.1970) Commission, poration an ordinance Federal Trade making any wilfully maliciously 1943). (7th ited and 133 F.2d Cir. noise, disturbance, improper diversion or In the context of these three held that Court school activities. The words, disturbing, interfering, pre- and vague and was not word disturbance venting, gain certainty use from their gained term, every that like other other, with each from their connection meaning context, and association record, in a and a conviction court of usage. commonly understood “orderly” reference the from their Louisiana, supra, administration, activities, the In Cox or v. State duct of the higher approved “precise” as educa- Court an institution of classes of “narrowly majority Unfortunately, made a statute which over- drawn” tion. the picket parade precedes it an or with and all follows offense to looks all that obstructing, interfering with, question. These in intent of the three words jus- vacuum, impeding in a were the administration terms not written were vacuum, language applied in a is used in to be This not intended tice. same judiciary, referring to the federal not be considered act should They refer a similar law in a vacuum. court processes U.S.C. § higher adopted Pennsylvania, an institution Act of in June raising majori- McAlpine, distinguishing difficult of a will avoid statute 15. In problems any ty other constitutional tire under con- commented application present: Garner in case the words used sideration Works, “wilfully maliciously,” rendering Public Board of thus L.Ed. Scienter be as- it more definite. reading implicit if to be sumed learning any any cannot if ad- function its convicted in court of record of buildings out, offense, expelled. ministrators are locked its or who had ever been intimidated, down, language definite, burned its students This and im- would be challenge faculty scholarly and stroyed. de- works of its mune of overbreadth. interfere, words, “disturb, paradoxical legislative The It is ef- greater prevent,” carry protect and ambiguity no burden of fort to students from harsh language consequences than is lot of their own mistakes generally. brings in which The combination this case before us. they occur, in and the context which (a) (3)—not I would consider all of being sugges- powerfully came into just part it. When the words sophisticated. tive even to the least question context, they are read are not vague. unconstitutionally majority holds that these words modifying phrase “in used with the VI. Subsection will not chill First uncon- course of” make this subsection Amendment should language stitutionally because per be declared void se “plan- “might” apply to be read to ning stages” “dis- of an event which majority opinion holds that sub- university This turbs” activities.16 (a) (3) sections are consti- clutching of” at a “In the course straw. tutionally overbroad. The doctrine of immediately fol- refers to the words that statutory overbreadth is concerned with interfering low, “disturbing, e., i. language which deals with two classes preventing.” no makes This subsection properly may conduct: that which stages.” “planning While reference to regulated by the state and that which ignore court “convicted error to regulated not be because of constitu- orderly of record” and “the conduct guarantees. tional Courts strike at activities, administration or classes by invalidating evil such a law un- higher learning,” it of an institution of applications they arise, constitutional compounds the error to add words by case, case or if First free- Amendment legislation purpose of bolster- declaring threatened, by doms are such a argument ing an it is unconstitu- striking law void on face and it down tional. in toto. majority My majority’s concern shows for first criticism of the might reasoning a unfortunate student who commit as to its failure overbreadth is carry draft specify exactly traffic violation or his fail which constitutional disturbance, during card rights endangered by a being course of it sees as sub- pointing out that such a student could (a) (2) sections This is (a) (3) is lose his financial assistance if literally important all stat- because not overbroad true, suppose followed. I is this should be declared void on their utes exactly and it Only for this reason face.17 those which threaten First placed in discretion treated Amendment should be freedoms legislature summary fashion,18 de- PHEAA’s Had the hands. and subsec- this “ * * * unsparing, (c) alia, sired the en- provides, fanciful results tion nothing inter majority, visioned have would in this section shall be construed any eliminated the words which have been to limit the freedom of student vague. Thus, expression found to be the statute individual views and verbal of Obviously, added) (emphasis could of all opinions.” have directed the termination any severely (c) had benefits to student who restricts subsection majority opinion, pages White, opinion, Dissenting 16. See 1208-1209. 18. Mr. Justice Cincinnati, City of Coates Dairy 17. United States National Prod- S.Ct. 29 L.Ed.2d Corp., 29, 32, 36, (1971); ucts Over The First Amendment 594, 597, 600, Doctrine, 83 Harv.L.Rev. L.Ed.2d breadth 852. endangers expres- First when a law which freedom of to a student’s threat be declared Amendment should sion. void on face. its is void on that a statute A declaration * * * “Degree only by of 1. Overbreadth justified favored face ought not struck down for law to be Amendment First afforded status recognize a sub- holdings it lends itself to rights.19 that a overbreadth unless Such appli- impermissible may potent a stantial number of pose as of sanctions threat * ** it is true cations freedom While the exercise deterrent o.f carefully drawn statutes even the most application of expression of as the actual chilling priv- may effect on have “chilling some effect” this sanctions. ** * pre- activity, ileged still the the de- allows an statute which overbroad substantially only sumption must be parture method from the more traditional up kind and de- overbroad laws set constitutionality judging cognizable. gree judicially that is of chill light factual situation established »* standing -X * at the behest someone * * * complain about it.20 Impact “Area analysis ap- perfunctory Even “ x* x substantially may ^ law be plication of subsections * * yet *, the area affect- overbroad possibility any chill- shows may ed the law taken a whole ing effect is remote. degree first involve to a substantial These subsections enable PHEAA example, activities. For amendment support withhold financial people conspiracy affect while laws expelled in a who has been convicted seeking viewpoints in the to advocate court of If be record. are to public forum, affected the activities consciously deterrence, a student must color- great bear no of situations run protected refrain from some conduct protection. amendment able claim to first the First Amendment which he X XX engaged except for the threat significant proportionately “Absent e., the tained in i. interests, an impact on amendment first finan- chill must come the fear that from val- expected law overbroad lost, fear of cial aid will be not from the appli- great preponderance ” id in the logical expulsion or conviction.21 As a * * * cations. proposition, possibility I as dif- find “Adjudicatory accept Alternatives—The ficult to that a swim- as the notion availability jumping guideline into mer would refrain from third concerns excising speed- perilous techniques judicial from fear of drown- water—not ap- drown, effectively potential ily bad ing, but fear that if he does from bathing law.” plications his taken suit of an overbroad him.22 valid, these sub- guidelines are If these sug- void on declared not be Three considerations have sections should determining all, they gested23 lend guide do not in First of courts face. their follow, Cramp thought process 19. must More v. Board Public Instruction Orange then, “No, County, Florida, if I I do 368 I won’t because my from PHEAA.” L.Ed.2d lose financial aid S.Ct. opinion, part the 22. of its In an earlier Dantinne, Pfister, majority cited Falcone Dombrowski v. prove (3rd 1969), 14 L.Ed.2d F.2d 1157 Cir. heavy expulsion sanc- from is a school language in relevant tion. The same and There be full must awareness possible against weighing expulsion loss process thought “I some as this: such of financial aid. engage though I will conduct certain expelled Amendment Overbreadth 23. The First know mean I will Doctrine, 858-862. 83 Harv.L.Rev. court of record.” convicted (a) (2) (3) to a substantial number of (a) part themselves tions impermissible applications. By their have been dissected out earlier very only opinion, affect a narrow nature can the and the Amendment Fourth range situations, e., i. students of factual contentions on basis that sufficient the convicted, expelled who apply who have been facts are not available to a test of their at an majority thereafter continue studies the feels reasonableness which institution, approved other- appropriate. and who are eligible financial assistance. wise plaintiffs’ While I concur that (c) Secondly, by of subsection reason prayers for relief should refused as to impact First Amendment their area of (b), expansive implica- subsection goes limited to conduct freedoms portions tions I find in ma- these beyond spoken word. and written jority opinion compel reject me to Pennsylvania Finally, provides law language. appeals from adverse administrative Amendment, As to the Fifth ma- directly appellate agency decisions to an jority says: Therefore, court.24 the absence reporting Plaintiffs’ claim that the contrary a suf- there is indication section violates Fifth the students’ adjudicatory to hold- ficient alternative right Amendment not to incriminate per se. the act unconstitutional long themselves must So as sub- fail. (2) (3) section have been (b) does not involve VII. Subsection statute, stricken from “compelled” Amendment Fourth or Fifth authorization which rights. gives university is to for- (b) provides: regarding his ward information it Subsection has * * * felony convictions to PHEAA. The im- Each shall institution stitution, course, may report agency, mediately furnish information whether student au- any student who name and address of thorizes or not. ais resident of the Commonwealth * * * expelled here, applicable who is As the Fifth Amend- (2) in clause for the reasons set forth ment states: ** *, * * * ofor whom of subsection person No shall be com- * * * knowledge the institution pelled in criminal case to abe wit- * offenses * * has been convicted of that he against ness himself forth in clauses as set prob- I can see no Fifth Amendment * * * subsection It does not lems with this statute. com- compliance contend Plaintiffs any- anything pel report student to requirements a stu- would violate these duty (b) imposes one.25 only upon Subsection rights not to dent’s Fifth Amendment institution, limited and a Fourth and his incriminate himself name, duty report a at that: student’s un- Amendment secure address, expulsion or con- fact of search and lawful seizures. (if known). Moreover, infor- viction arguments rejects majority both required part of a “crim- mation is present on the of the record: case,” help state deter- inal but to PHEAA subsec- among Fifth Amendment claim because of students mine thousands appeal By essentially 24. Such an the would be to Com v. neutral act: California July 31, 1970, 424, ers, monwealth Act of Court: S.Ct. —, IV, P.L. (1971). Art. § P.S. § 29 L.Ed.2d 9 211.403. 26. in the Fifth Amendment. The term used supplied 25. The fact that he his name to incriminate Witnesses are comxielled and address to the institution does not the in non-criminal cases all themselves bring play. the Fifth Amendment into time. Disclosure of name and address is an deserving support student, property, are of financial the is not his and does Any which not. not come from him. test of rea- inapt sonableness is there is no because to Amendment Were the Fifth constitutionally protected against right of subsection volved in the considerations which to balance the usefulness to (b), mystified the strik- I how am as to required PHEAA of the I information. affects, ing (2) (a) (3) (a) as amazing an consider it extension of the guar- rights majority implies, the it the suggest Fourth Amendment a to stu- the no If is violation antees. there right person, dent’s to be secure in his require the institu- to Fifth Amendment house, papers, gives and effects him a arson, a report for tion to a conviction constitutionally protected right to a as to felony, requiring it how I do not see college’s house, just papers, and effects burning a report expulsion down name because his and address27 have building disrupting activities and thus been recorded there. rights. self-same violate those would report “may Finally, if institution VIII. Abstention or it he the student whether authorizes not,” fact how the I wonder Finally, I this is believe a case changes report requires statute pass upon we should not until after the regard anything student’s to given courts of have been rights. Amendment Fifth interpret opportunity to subsections Amendment, ma- As the Fourth to (a) (b). They had this have never * * * jority states Although Supreme chance. Court has courts made clear federal undisput- do not have sufficient We questions, should decide federal Zwickler legal judg- to on which base ed facts Koota, * * * resolution ment [since] of the one

plaintiffs’ area turn claims justi “special will circumstances” which the seizure a determination of whether fy susceptibility of a abstention a student institution’s records of avoid a construction compelled reasonable.” statute is question. modify the constitutional Recently referred Court say- majority, I As understand plas job of to a state “remarkable court’s knowing that PHEAA’s interests surgery upon ordi face tic (and that a has been convicted give effort nance” a commendable expelled (2) invali- if had not been legislation operation within a field of against earlier) balanced dated must be limits: Shuttlesworth constitutional not the student’s constitutional Birmingham, Ala., City subjected to and seizure. search 935, 940, 941, L.Ed. 2d 162 proposition, this sounds abstract As an enough—but the search where is fair holding majority’s that subsec- being reported to That seizure ? which' on the turns is overbroad tion address, e., name, regulation fact meaning words, “lawful PHEAA—i. majority custody reasons or order.” not of conviction—is activities, Byers, supra. disruption adminis- note to a tration, See California required report Tlie classes. expulsions deny (b) refers PIIEAA in subsection authorizes expulsion anyone lias ex- Thus an who under assistance reported obey pelled reason need some other for the refusal lawful refusal, order, regulation to PIIEAA. institution, opinion contributed regulations university’s orders private

might deny Amendment freedoms First PROTECTIVE LO MUSICIANS’ UNION it has been because and lawful still be M., CAL A. F. or NO. 274 OF labor Fourteenth Amendment held that ganization, Adams, James on his private of a all apply to the edicts own behalf and on behalf of others does not similarly situated institution. pri- proposition that leap from The AMERICAN FEDERATION OF MU not Four- need afford vate institutions the UNITED SICIANS OF STATES process as- due Amendment teenth AND CANADA. Amendment free- sumption First Civ. A. No. 71-809. stu- be denied to therefore doms would Court, United States District Pennsylvania courts dents Pennsylvania. E. D. uncertainty, spans un- river of a broad June stepping by any supporting marked Pennsylvania citations. stones imagine.

They difficult would constitution,

Pennsylvania’s Article own guarantees press and free Section Penn- Court of spech. The

free legislation

sylvania voided expression and

threatened freedom process: Wil- provide for due

failed to Inc., Dana, Theatres,

liam Goldman main- It has A.2d 59

Pa. argument vigorous de-

tained the existence

bate are essential Clark

preservation States: the United Allen, A.2d 415 Pa. ques- me, if faced with seems to

tion, the courts

very “lawful” to mean well construe recognize law,

accordance with part law of is

First Amendment phrase, land, therefore regulation or order” refers

“lawful consti- not contravene guarantees speech. free

tutional my act belief that view statute, penal read as

should not be are viewed its words when

light and in the the decided cases use, be- is not overbroad

text of their chilling First possibility

cause the remote, freedoms

Amendment construction

susceptible constitutional courts, dismiss I would the state

complaint.

Case Details

Case Name: Corporation of Haverford College v. Reeher

Court Name: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date Published: Jul 19, 1971

Citation: 329 F. Supp. 1196

Docket Number: Civ. A. 70-2411

Court Abbreviation: E.D. Pa.