## Facts

- A Massachusetts city enacted a “Youth Protection Curfew for Minors” requiring persons under 17 to be at home between 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m., subject to specified exceptions (e.g., with a parent, traveling to or from work, emergencies, certain protected activities).
- On separate dates around midnight, police encountered two juveniles outside in public and arrested them for violating the curfew.
- The ordinance authorized two enforcement tracks:
  - Civil enforcement: notice to appear in a civil proceeding, parental notice, and a modest civil fine, without delinquency adjudication or a criminal record.
  - Criminal enforcement: arrest and delinquency proceedings, with higher monetary penalties and exposure to juvenile justice sanctions, including possible detention and a delinquency record.
- The juveniles moved to dismiss, asserting constitutional violations, including equal protection under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
- A Juvenile Court judge reported to the appellate courts questions about whether the ordinance violated equal protection by restricting juveniles’ movement more than persons 17 and older, and what standard of review applied.
- The Supreme Judicial Court granted direct appellate review.

## Issues

1. Whether the ordinance implicated a fundamental right of juveniles to free movement under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, requiring strict scrutiny for the equal protection challenge.
2. Whether the ordinance was narrowly tailored to serve compelling governmental interests, particularly as to its civil and criminal enforcement mechanisms.

## Decision

- The court held that the ordinance implicated a fundamental right of free movement for juveniles protected by the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
- The court applied strict scrutiny to the equal protection challenge.
- The court held the curfew restriction and its civil enforcement mechanism were narrowly tailored to compelling interests (protecting minors, reducing crime, reinforcing parental supervision).
- The court held the ordinance’s criminal enforcement provisions (arrest, delinquency process, and criminal-type penalties for curfew violations) were unconstitutional because they were not the least restrictive means.

## Legal Principles

- Under Massachusetts equal protection doctrine, a law that significantly burdens a fundamental right is subject to strict scrutiny.
- A juvenile curfew that broadly restricts minors’ nighttime movement implicates a fundamental right of free movement protected by the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
- Under strict scrutiny, the government must show a compelling interest and that the regulation is narrowly tailored, including use of the least restrictive means.
- Civil, protective responses to curfew violations may satisfy strict scrutiny when structured to avoid punitive criminal consequences.
- Criminalizing a curfew violation through arrest and delinquency adjudication can fail strict scrutiny when less restrictive civil enforcement is available and aligns better with rehabilitative aims of the juvenile justice system.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Judicial Court required strict scrutiny for equal protection challenges to sweeping juvenile curfews, upheld the ordinance when enforced through civil procedures, and invalidated its criminal enforcement provisions as not the least restrictive means of achieving compelling governmental interests.


Commonwealth v. Weston W., 455 Mass. 24, 913 N.E.2d 832 (Mass. 2009)