The U.S. Supreme Court case Lanzetta et al. v. New Jersey in 1938 involved a challenge to a New Jersey law that made it illegal for any person "not engaged in any lawful occupation" and known to be part of a "gang" to be present within the state's borders. The plaintiffs, three brothers who were alleged gang members but not proven guilty of any specific crime, argued that this law was unconstitutionally vague and violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause because it did not clearly define what constituted as being part of a 'gang'. The Supreme Court agreed with them unanimously, ruling that laws must have clear standards so ordinary people can understand what behavior is prohibited or required; otherwise they violate due process protections against arbitrary enforcement by government officials.

In the dissenting opinion for Lanzetta et al. v. New Jersey, Justice Butler argued that the statute in question was not vague or indefinite and did not violate due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. He believed that it clearly defined what constituted a gang and criminal behavior within this context, providing sufficient notice to individuals about prohibited conduct. Furthermore, he contended that there were adequate standards in place to prevent arbitrary enforcement of this law by police officers or judges. According to him, any person of ordinary intelligence would be able to understand its meaning and implications without difficulty; therefore it should have been upheld as constitutional.