Connection lost
Server error
City of Chicago v. Morales Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Supreme Court struck down a Chicago anti-gang ordinance that criminalized loitering with “no apparent purpose.” The Court found the ordinance unconstitutionally vague because it failed to provide notice of prohibited conduct and granted police excessive, standardless discretion.
Legal Significance: This case is a landmark application of the void-for-vagueness doctrine, establishing that laws criminalizing conduct based on a “no apparent purpose” standard grant unconstitutional discretion to law enforcement and fail to provide adequate notice to citizens under the Due Process Clause.
City of Chicago v. Morales Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The City of Chicago enacted a Gang Congregation Ordinance to combat gang-related crime and intimidation. The ordinance made it a criminal offense for a person to “loiter” in a public place with one or more persons whom a police officer reasonably believes to be a criminal street gang member. “Loiter” was defined as “to remain in any one place with no apparent purpose.” The ordinance required that upon observing such a group, a police officer “shall order all such persons to disperse.” Any person, whether a gang member or not, who failed to promptly obey the dispersal order was in violation of the ordinance. The Chicago Police Department issued a General Order to guide enforcement, limiting its application to designated areas and establishing criteria for identifying gang members. During its three years of enforcement, police issued over 89,000 dispersal orders and made over 42,000 arrests under the ordinance. The Illinois Supreme Court held the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague on its face.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a municipal ordinance that prohibits loitering, defined as remaining in one place with “no apparent purpose,” and requires police to order dispersal of groups containing a suspected gang member, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it is impermissibly vague?
Yes. The ordinance is unconstitutionally vague on its face because it fails Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamc
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a municipal ordinance that prohibits loitering, defined as remaining in one place with “no apparent purpose,” and requires police to order dispersal of groups containing a suspected gang member, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it is impermissibly vague?
Conclusion
This case solidifies the constitutional limits on loitering statutes, holding that laws Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqu
Legal Rule
A criminal law is unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause if Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate vel
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court affirmed the Illinois Supreme Court, holding the ordinance unconstitutionally Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptat
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Held Chicago’s anti-gang loitering ordinance unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process