Gallagher v. Magner Ex Rel. City of St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement, 619 F.3d 823 (2010)

Citation: Gallagher v. Magner Ex Rel. City of St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement, 619 F.3d 823 (2010)
Parent Document: Gallagher v. Magner Ex Rel. City of St. Paul's Department of Neighborhood Housing & Property Improvement, 619 F.3d 823 (2010)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2010-09-01
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/174536/gallagher-v-magner-ex-rel-city-o... ↗

Full Text

1,235 chars

-25-
       The Gallagher Appellants also assert a facial challenge to several chapters of
the St. Paul Code under the void-for-vagueness doctrine. Facial challenges to
legislative enactments are, to say the least, discouraged.        See United States v.
Stephens, 594 F.3d 1033, 1037 (8th Cir. 2010). Appellants’ basic complaint is that
the St. Paul Code does not provide sufficient notice of rental property owners’
obligations under the law, placing unwarranted discretion in the hands of DNHPI.
The Gallagher Appellants point to several City employees’ inability to explain the
categorization of vacant buildings and the meaning of the terms “problem property”
and “Code Compliance Certification.” However, the Gallagher Appellants must do
more than allege general confusion regarding a legislative enactment. To start with,
they must identify a particular section of the St. Paul Code that is impermissibly
vague, as we will not declare entire chapters of the St. Paul Code facially
unconstitutional. Appellants fail to reference a particular section of the St. Paul Code,
let alone analyze why that section is vague. Without more, the Gallagher Appellants’
facial void-for-vagueness claim fails as a matter of law. F.     RICO8

Other Sections in This Document (106)

Full Text