## Facts

- Dallas enacted an ordinance requiring a special license for “Class E” dance halls intended for teenagers.
- The ordinance restricted admission to persons ages 14–18 and limited operating hours.
- Charles M. Stanglin operated the Twilight Skating Rink, which included a separately designated Class E dance-hall area.
- Stanglin challenged the age and hour restrictions, alleging violations of the First Amendment freedom of association and the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause.
- A Texas trial court upheld the ordinance; the Texas Court of Appeals invalidated the age restriction on a theory of a fundamental “right of social association” while leaving the hour restriction intact.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether restricting admission to certain dance halls to persons ages 14–18 infringes the First Amendment freedom of association.
2. Whether the age-based admission restriction violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Texas Court of Appeals and upheld the ordinance, including the age restriction.
- The Court held that patrons’ “coming together to engage in recreational dancing” is not a form of association protected by the First Amendment.
- The Court applied rational-basis review to the age classification and found it rationally related to the City’s interest in promoting teenagers’ welfare and limiting harmful adult influences.
- Justice Stevens concurred in the judgment, viewing the interest as more naturally analyzed under due process, but agreed the ordinance was reasonable.

## Legal Principles

- First Amendment associational protection generally covers (1) intimate association and (2) expressive association; casual socializing in a public commercial venue does not qualify.
- A generalized constitutional “right of social association” does not extend to impersonal, unorganized, fee-paid gatherings such as dance-hall attendance.
- When no fundamental right or suspect classification is implicated, an age-based regulation is assessed under rational-basis review and will be upheld if it has any reasonable connection to a legitimate governmental interest.
- Under rational-basis review, a classification need not be perfectly tailored; under-inclusiveness and the existence of alternative means do not alone make it unconstitutional.

## Conclusion

The Court held that recreational dancing in a teen dance hall is not protected First Amendment association and that Dallas’s age-based admission restriction was a reasonable measure rationally related to protecting teenagers’ welfare, so the ordinance was constitutional.


City of Dallas v. Stanglin, 490 U.S. 19 (1989)