Uploaded April 2025 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Gray v. Kohl
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
568 F. Supp. 2d 1378 (2008)
The Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause prohibits states from depriving a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. In Gray versus Kohl, we explore the intersection of that clause and statutory vagueness.
The Florida school safety zone statute prohibited certain conduct within five hundred feet of school properties.
Section two b criminalized entering or remaining in a safety zone during certain hours without having a legitimate business purpose.
Section two c made it a criminal offense for a person without a legitimate business purpose to fail to leave a safety zone after being asked to leave by a school official.
The section only applied if the official's request was based on reasonable anticipation of criminal conduct, harassment, or intimidation.
While both sections use the term legitimate business, that term was not defined.
Thomas Gray was a member of a religious organization that regularly distributed bibles in public places.
In two thousand seven, Gray led a group distribution on a public sidewalk outside of Key Largo School at the end of the school day.
Per the organization's policies, Gray informed the local police department two weeks beforehand.
He was assured the distribution was permissible.
Also, shortly before beginning the distribution, Gray informed a local patrol officer in the school. But after distribution began, several of Gray's codistributors were arrested and charged with violating the safety statute. Although the codistributors weren't convicted, the situation prompted Gray to sue state attorney Mark Kohl and local sheriff Richard Roth. Gray alleged, among other things, that the safety statute facially violated the due process clause because it was unconstitutionally vague. In the district court, Gray moved for summary judgment on the vagueness claim, and Roth moved for summary judgment on other claims.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/gray-v-kohl
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/gray-v-kohl
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Gray v. Kohl
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
568 F. Supp. 2d 1378 (2008)
The Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause prohibits states from depriving a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. In Gray versus Kohl, we explore the intersection of that clause and statutory vagueness.
The Florida school safety zone statute prohibited certain conduct within five hundred feet of school properties.
Section two b criminalized entering or remaining in a safety zone during certain hours without having a legitimate business purpose.
Section two c made it a criminal offense for a person without a legitimate business purpose to fail to leave a safety zone after being asked to leave by a school official.
The section only applied if the official's request was based on reasonable anticipation of criminal conduct, harassment, or intimidation.
While both sections use the term legitimate business, that term was not defined.
Thomas Gray was a member of a religious organization that regularly distributed bibles in public places.
In two thousand seven, Gray led a group distribution on a public sidewalk outside of Key Largo School at the end of the school day.
Per the organization's policies, Gray informed the local police department two weeks beforehand.
He was assured the distribution was permissible.
Also, shortly before beginning the distribution, Gray informed a local patrol officer in the school. But after distribution began, several of Gray's codistributors were arrested and charged with violating the safety statute. Although the codistributors weren't convicted, the situation prompted Gray to sue state attorney Mark Kohl and local sheriff Richard Roth. Gray alleged, among other things, that the safety statute facially violated the due process clause because it was unconstitutionally vague. In the district court, Gray moved for summary judgment on the vagueness claim, and Roth moved for summary judgment on other claims.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/gray-v-kohl
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/gray-v-kohl
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
