Ribotsky v. United States

How later courts describe this case

• a scienter requirement may mitigate a law’s vagueness with respect to adequacy of notice that specified conduct is proscribed
• injury occurs at the time of first exposure, at the time the injury becomes apparent, and at all times in between
• a law that does not reach constitutionally protected conduct and therefore satisfies the overbreadth test may nevertheless be challenged on its face as unduly vague, in violation of due process
• Brennan, J., with whom Marshall, J., joins, dissenting from dismissal of appeal for want of substantial federal question
• "One to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.” (quotation and citation omitted)
• upholding validity of Nebraska Drug Paraphernalia statute