Ribotsky v. United States

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 scienter requirement may mitigate a law’s vagueness with respect to adequacy of notice that specified conduct is proscribed | 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