Connally v. Gen. Constr. Co. - 269 U.S. 385, 46 S. Ct. 126 (1926)

Rule:

That the terms of a penal statute creating a new offense must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties, is a well-recognized requirement, consonant alike with ordinary notions of fair play and the settled rules of law. And a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law.

Facts:

Appellee, a contractor building bridges for the state, paid its laborers at different rates depending on the type of work done and the agreements reached with them. Appellant Commissioner of Labor claimed that appellee violated Okla. Comp. Stat. § 7255 because it was paying some laborers less than the current rate of wages in the locality as determined by the Commissioner, and threatened appellee with criminal sanctions under Okla. Comp. Stat. § 7257. Appellee filed suit to enjoin appellants from enforcing the statutes, and the district court granted appellee an interlocutory order enjoining the enforcement.

Issue:

Could the appellee be penalized under Okla. Comp. Stat. §§ 7255 and 7257?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the interlocutory order since the term "current rate of wages" referred to minimum, maximum, and intermediate amounts; thus, the term was too vague for appellee to know to which amount the statute referred. In addition, the term "locality" had no precise meaning. Thus, the statute did not allow employers to know what the minimum wage was, and it was therefore unconstitutionally vague.