Schleifer Ex Rel. Schleifer v. City of Charlottesville
159 F.3d 843 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A narrowly tailored juvenile curfew ordinance that serves compelling governmental interests, such as reducing juvenile crime and protecting minors, is constitutional. The state's authority over children's activities is broader than over adults, justifying a standard of review less than strict scrutiny, though such an ordinance can survive even strict scrutiny if it is sufficiently limited in scope and provides adequate exceptions.
Facts:
- On December 16, 1996, the Charlottesville City Council enacted a juvenile nocturnal curfew ordinance to reduce juvenile crime, protect minors from harm, and foster parental responsibility.
- The ordinance prohibited unemancipated persons under seventeen from being in any public place or establishment between 12:01 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. on weekdays, and between 1:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. on weekends.
- The ordinance contained eight enumerated exceptions, permitting minors to be out if accompanied by a parent, running a written errand for a parent, engaged in employment, attending supervised activities, or exercising First Amendment rights, among others.
- Five minors subject to the ordinance alleged that, with their parents' permission, they wished to engage in lawful activities during curfew hours that were not covered by the exceptions.
- These desired activities included attending late movies, socializing, playing in a band, and returning home from concerts in a nearby city.
- The parent plaintiffs alleged that the ordinance interfered with their decisions regarding which activities, and at what times, were appropriate for their children.
Procedural Posture:
- A group of minors, parents, and an eighteen-year-old (Plaintiffs) sued the City of Charlottesville in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia.
- The suit sought a declaratory judgment and an injunction against the City's juvenile curfew ordinance, alleging it violated their First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
- At trial, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their Fourth Amendment claims.
- Following a trial on the merits, the district court rejected the plaintiffs' remaining claims and denied their motion for a permanent injunction.
- The plaintiffs (Appellants) appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a juvenile nocturnal curfew ordinance, which restricts the public presence of minors under 17 during late-night hours but provides numerous exceptions for various activities, violate the constitutional rights of minors and their parents under the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Wilkinson
No, the juvenile nocturnal curfew ordinance does not violate the constitutional rights of minors and their parents. Because children's rights are not coextensive with those of adults, a curfew ordinance is subject to intermediate scrutiny and is constitutional if it is substantially related to important governmental interests. The Charlottesville ordinance meets this standard, and would even survive strict scrutiny, because it serves compelling state interests and is narrowly tailored. The City has compelling interests in reducing juvenile crime, protecting minors from harm, and strengthening parental responsibility. The ordinance is narrowly tailored because it applies only to a limited age group during a few late-night hours and contains eight comprehensive exceptions for a wide range of legitimate activities, including an explicit exception for First Amendment activities. The law does not unconstitutionally burden parental rights, as the state has an independent interest in the welfare of children, and the exceptions accommodate parental authority. Furthermore, the ordinance's exceptions are not unconstitutionally vague, as they provide adequate notice of prohibited conduct and do not grant law enforcement unfettered discretion.
Dissenting - Judge Michael
Yes, the juvenile nocturnal curfew ordinance violates the constitutional rights of minors and their parents. The ordinance implicates fundamental rights and should be subject to strict scrutiny, a test it fails because it is not narrowly tailored and improperly usurps parental authority. The ordinance is overbroad, treating all minors as potential criminals to address the actions of a few. Instead of supporting the parental role, as required by precedent, the ordinance paternalistically displaces parental discretion by imposing a community-wide standard on all families. Additionally, the ordinance is void for vagueness because its exception for 'exercising First Amendment rights' is undefined, forcing minors, parents, and police to guess at the complex contours of constitutional law. This ambiguity chills the exercise of protected activities and allows for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, violating the Due Process Clause.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of intermediate scrutiny for laws that differentiate based on age while impacting fundamental rights, affirming that minors' constitutional rights are not coextensive with adults'. It provides a clear model for municipalities seeking to draft constitutionally sound curfew ordinances by endorsing a framework with limited hours, a younger age cap, and numerous, specific exceptions. The ruling deepens a circuit split on the appropriate level of scrutiny for juvenile curfews, contrasting with more skeptical circuits that apply strict scrutiny. This case reinforces the state's parens patriae power to regulate minors for their own protection and community safety, even when it conflicts with the wishes of some parents.
