Many of us have experienced misunderstandings due to miscommunication. For example, you might ask your partner to help with a chore around the house, shouting, “Can I get a hand?” 

They reply, “Be there in a minute!” 

But five minutes later, you’re frustrated—because to you, “a minute” means exactly 60 seconds, while to them, it might mean “soon-ish.” 

Now, imagine these kinds of misunderstandings happening in a courtroom, where the stakes are much higher. The discrepancy between “to-may-to” and “to-mah-to” could mean the difference between a lengthy prison sentence or millions of dollars in damages. 

In this article, we explore two notable cases where semantics—the study of how words and phrases convey meaning and how that meaning shifts depending on context—played a critical role in shaping legal outcomes. 

#1 The Definition of Loitering: City of Chicago v. Morales (1999) 

In the 1990s, Chicago faced a significant rise in homicides due to gang violence. In 1992, the city recorded 920 homicides—the highest number since 1973—and many were linked to gang-related activities. To reduce these violent crimes, the city passed the Gang Congregation Ordinance. According to the law, law enforcement officers were authorized to make people leave a public area if they were suspected of “loitering” and met the following criteria: 

  • More than one person was gathered in a public place. 
  • They appeared to be gang members. 

What Was Wrong With This Law? 

The main issue with this law was its vagueness. It didn’t clearly define “loitering”: Did it mean standing in one place for a long time or simply gathering in a group? Nor did it specify how to determine gang affiliation, leaving too much discretion to law enforcement. This ambiguity gave police broad authority to question and remove individuals based on suspicion alone, increasing the risk of racial profiling and arbitrary arrests. 

The Legal Case 

In one notable incident, Jesus Morales was arrested under this law. He contested the charge in court, arguing that the law was unconstitutional. His case eventually reached the United States Supreme Court in 1999. The Court ruled 6-3 that the law was too vague and violated the 14th Amendment, which guarantees due process and equal protection under the law. 

The Supreme Court’s reasoning included: 

  • Vagueness 
    The law didn’t clearly define what actions or behaviors were illegal, making it impossible for people to know when they were breaking the law. 
  • Discretionary Power 
    The law gave police officers the authority to decide who appeared to be a gang member based on personal judgment, which led to the risk of racial profiling. 
  • Unfair Arrests 
    The law allowed people to be arrested simply for standing in a public space, even if they weren’t engaged in any suspicious activity. 

Why This Case Matters 

City of Chicago v. Morales reinforced an important legal principle: Laws must be clear and specific so that citizens and law enforcement understand what is permissible and what isn’t. Vague laws can grant too much power to authorities, leading to unfair enforcement and potential violations of constitutional rights. 

#2 What Is a Sandwich?: White City Shopping Center v. PR Restaurants, LLC (2006) 

At first glance, the question “What is a sandwich?” seems straightforward. A sandwich typically consists of two pieces of bread with various fillings in between, right? 

But what if that definition doesn’t align with everyone’s understanding of a sandwich? That’s precisely what happened to a Panera Bread location in Shrewsbury, Massachusetts. 

The Problem: What Is a Sandwich? 

This particular Panera had a lease agreement that included an exclusivity clause. To limit competition, the clause stipulated that no other restaurant in the White City Shopping Center could serve sandwiches. However, the lease didn’t specify what exactly constituted a sandwich. 

When Qdoba opened in the same shopping mall and began selling burritos and tacos, Panera claimed that those items (since they were wrapped in a form of bread) qualified as sandwiches under their lease’s exclusivity clause. White City then filed a lawsuit seeking a court declaration that leasing to Qdoba did not violate the clause. 

The Legal Case 

The core issue in the case was simple: What defines a sandwich? Can a burrito or taco, with fillings wrapped inside a tortilla, be considered a sandwich? 

When the case went to court, the judge ruled that tacos, burritos, and quesadillas are not sandwiches. As a result, Qdoba was not in violation of Panera’s exclusivity clause. 

Why This Case Matters 

This case highlights how an everyday word like “sandwich” can lead to a legal dispute when it isn’t clearly defined. The ruling stresses the importance of explicitly defining terms in legal documents to prevent ambiguity. It also shows how personal interpretations of common terms can cause misunderstandings and conflicts in legal settings. 

FAQ 

  • What does semantics mean? 
    Semantics is the study of meaning in language: how words, phrases, and sentences convey meaning, and how those meanings can change based on context. 
  • What are examples of semantics? 
    Examples of semantics include how words like “loitering” can be interpreted differently depending on the context. You may use “loitering” in casual conversation to refer to simply hanging out, but in legal contexts, it could carry specific legal implications, such as being associated with gang activity. 
  • When have semantics caused problems in the courtroom? 
    Semantics has caused issues in several court cases where vague or ambiguous terms were at the heart of legal disputes. For example, in City of Chicago v. Morales (1999), the lack of a clear definition for “loitering” led to questions about racial profiling and constitutional rights. Similarly, Panera Bread’s lawsuit against Qdoba centered on the ambiguity of the term “sandwich,” showing how unclear definitions can lead to legal conflicts. 

Find Clarity With a Degree From UTPB 

Fortunately, extreme semantic miscommunications are rare compared to the small misunderstandings we experience daily. For example, when your partner says they’ll “clean” the kitchen, their version of “clean” might not align with yours—leading to frustration (or a kitchen that’s only halfway tidy). Understanding the nuances of language is key to avoiding misinterpretations, whether in personal conversations or professional settings. 

The same principle applies to written communication. Words have power, and the ability to craft clear, compelling messages is a skill in high demand across industries. If you’re looking for a degree that opens doors in marketing, communication, education, writing, law, and beyond, The University of Texas Permian Basin (UTPB) offers online Bachelor of Arts (BA) and Master of Arts (MA) degrees in English to help you master the art of effective communication. 

Each program explores the richness of the English language through literature, linguistics, and writing, examining works from Shakespeare to contemporary authors. In our undergraduate program, you can even take a course on semantics, where you’ll dive deep into how words shape meaning, logic, and interpretation. 

With multiple start dates, affordable tuition, and fully online options, UTPB makes it easy to earn your degree on your schedule. Browse our programs today to find the best path for you. 

Sources: 
https://apps.chicagotribune.com/history-of-chicago-homicides-1957-2016/blurb.html#
https://crfcap.org/images/pdf/5A.pdf
https://opencasebook.org/casebooks/13053-torts/resources/2.9-white-city-shopping-center-v-pr-restaurants-llc