## Facts

- Rochester enacted a juvenile nighttime curfew making it unlawful for unaccompanied minors under 17 to be in public between 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. (midnight to 5:00 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays), excluding married or emancipated minors.
- The ordinance created affirmative exceptions, including being with a parent/guardian/responsible adult; working or traveling to/from work; emergencies; attending/returning from supervised school, religious, or civic activities; exercising specified constitutional rights; and interstate travel.
- Police were authorized to stop persons appearing to be minors during curfew hours, request identifying and explanatory information, and detain or take a minor into custody if the officer reasonably believed a curfew violation occurred and no exception applied.
- The City justified the curfew as addressing juvenile crime, victimization, and safety concerns during late-night hours.
- The ordinance did not include a general exception allowing minors to be in public with parental permission for otherwise lawful activities.
- A father sued on behalf of his minor child and himself seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the City, the Mayor, and the Police Chief, alleging constitutional violations.
- The trial court dismissed and upheld the ordinance; the Appellate Division reversed, declared the ordinance unconstitutional, and enjoined enforcement.

## Issues

1. Whether the juvenile curfew unconstitutionally burdened minors’ constitutional rights, including movement and expressive/associational activity.
2. Whether the curfew unconstitutionally interfered with parents’ liberty interest in directing their children’s upbringing and supervision.
3. What level of scrutiny applies to a juvenile curfew, and whether this ordinance was substantially related to important governmental objectives.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division and held the curfew unconstitutional under the Federal and New York State Constitutions.
- The court applied intermediate scrutiny, recognizing important governmental objectives (juvenile safety and crime prevention) but finding the ordinance insufficiently tailored.
- The court concluded the curfew’s breadth and structure imposed substantial burdens on minors and parents without an adequate fit to the asserted goals.
- The injunction against enforcement remained in place.

## Legal Principles

- Minors possess constitutional rights, though they may be subject to greater regulation than adults; governmental restrictions still must satisfy constitutional scrutiny.
- Parents have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in directing the upbringing and supervision of their children, and government may not displace parental judgment without sufficient justification.
- Under intermediate scrutiny, the government must show an important objective and a substantial relationship (substantial nexus) between that objective and the means chosen.
- A juvenile curfew may fail intermediate scrutiny when it broadly criminalizes minors’ nighttime presence in public, relies on limited exceptions, and lacks a general parental-permission exception that would reduce intrusion on family autonomy.
- Tailoring analysis may consider whether the asserted harms are meaningfully addressed by the ordinance and whether less restrictive designs used elsewhere indicate feasible alternatives.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated Rochester’s juvenile curfew because, despite legitimate public-safety aims, the ordinance was not substantially related to those aims and impermissibly shifted nighttime decision-making from parents to the municipality by broadly restricting minors’ lawful presence in public without a general parental-consent exception.


Anonymous v. City of Rochester, 915 N.E.2d 593 (N.Y. 2009)