Definitions

Enjoin:

The act of issuing an injunction or restraining order. Courts issue such orders to prevent potentially harmful acts by government or private parties.

Injunction:

A court order prohibiting the government or a private entity or individual from taking or continuing to take a specific action or ordering someone to undo some wrong or harm. Generally a hearing is held prior to the issuing of a temporary injunction (TRO). After more extensive hearings a permanent injunction may be issued.

Question of Law / Question of Fact:

The line between "law" and "fact" is not always clear; however in the law the distinction is of great significance. Judges have the authority to decide Questions of Law, while Questions of Fact are decided by the fact-finder, either a judge or a jury, at trial.

One law dictionary distinguishes the two in the following way: "a 'question of fact' is about what is or what happened, while a 'question of law' is about how the law affects what happened and what should of happened according to the law."

Overbreadth Doctrine:

When a statute regulates or prohibits speech , courts will review the reach or the scope of the law to make sure that it does not reach beyond the speech that the government may regulate to speech that is constitutionally protected from regulation.

Per Curium:

"By the Court." An unsigned opinion of the whole court. Generally short in length, a per curium opinion sometimes represents an opinion written by the chief or presiding judge of the court.

Restraining Order:

An order issued prior to the issuing of a temporary injunction. A restraining order is intended to prevent actions that may cause the alledged harm until a hearing can be held to determine the merits of the request for an injunction.

Vagueness Doctrine:

Lawmakers are required to write laws that are clear and understandable. When a law is drafted using language that persons of "common intelligence" cannot determine its meaning, the law is "void for vagueness."

For example, in Doe v. University of Michigan, 721 F. Supp. 852 (E.D. Mich. 1989), the judge found that the university's hate speech code was unconstitutional because "Looking at the plain language of the Policy, it is simply impossible to discern any limitation on its scope or any conceptual distinction between protected and unprotected conduct."