Thread by @bradheath

The full 4th Cir. rules that a Virginia law making it a crime for "habitual drunkards" to possess alcohol is unconstitutionally vague. The government "cannot tolerate is the targeted criminalization of otherwise legal behavior that is an involuntary manifestation of an illness."

One problem, the 4th Cir. majority says, is that Virginia's law doesn't actually define what would make some a habitual drunkard.

Three judges write separately to say that maybe everybody should take it down a notch. "I worry about the message that we convey to the public when we attempt to bolster a legal analysis by making assertions suggesting malfeasance by judges who disagree with our position."

Judge Wilkinson really doesn't like this decision, which "operates to visit structural and institutional damage in so many respects. Any one of these flaws would be serious. Altogether, they are more than severe."

Wilkinson also writes another dissent, this time in response to the judges who thought his other one too heated. "What I hope makes the judicial process unique is that the clash of views plays out under a transcendent canopy of mutual regard and affection."

This whole thing is pretty interesting.

"Civility, for all its value, may also be used as a censoring mechanism to drain and dilute dissenting voices. Flaws are not always best laid bare by pallid speech. Animation defines the First Amendment I was taught to revere."

Here's the whole thing -> ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/17132…