## Facts

- In 1991, the Dallas City Council enacted a juvenile-curfew ordinance aimed at reducing nighttime juvenile crime and juvenile victimization.
- The ordinance generally made it unlawful for persons under 17 to be in a public place during curfew hours: 11:00 p.m.–6:00 a.m. on weeknights and 12:00 a.m.–6:00 a.m. on weekends.
- The ordinance included multiple exceptions, including when a minor was with a parent or guardian, or when the minor was engaged in specified activities such as civic, religious, or employment-related activities.
- The ordinance also provided an exception for minors engaged in First Amendment activity (e.g., attending or traveling to or from protected expressive or associational events).
- A violation subjected the minor to a fine up to $500 for each separate offense; parents/guardians and business operators who allowed minors to violate the curfew could also face fines up to $500 per violation.
- A class of plaintiffs, including minor plaintiffs and their parents (Qutb and others), sued Dallas officials (including Police Chief Bartlett) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the curfew violated minors’ constitutional rights, including associational rights, and interfered with parents’ rights to direct the upbringing of their children.
- The federal district court struck down the ordinance and enjoined enforcement, concluding it violated minors’ First Amendment right of association.
- The City appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether the Dallas juvenile-curfew ordinance unconstitutionally infringed minors’ constitutional rights, including First Amendment associational rights and rights of movement/travel, and parents’ liberty interest in directing the upbringing of their children.
2. What level of constitutional scrutiny applied to the curfew, and whether the ordinance could survive that level of review.
3. Assuming strict scrutiny applied, whether the ordinance was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and upheld the curfew ordinance as constitutional.
- The court assumed, without deciding, that strict scrutiny applied, and held that the ordinance survived strict scrutiny.
- The court recognized compelling governmental interests in protecting juveniles and reducing juvenile crime and juvenile victimization during late-night hours.
- The court concluded the ordinance was narrowly tailored because it was limited to particular nighttime hours and contained numerous exceptions that allowed legitimate, supervised, and constitutionally protected activity, including First Amendment activity and specified work, religious, and civic activities.
- The court vacated the injunction, allowing the City to enforce the ordinance.

## Legal Principles

- Minors have constitutional rights, but those rights are not always coextensive with adults’ rights; government may place greater limits on minors in light of their vulnerability and the state’s role in safeguarding children.
- A city may have a compelling interest in protecting minors from nighttime harm and in reducing juvenile crime and juvenile victimization.
- Even where strict scrutiny is assumed, a juvenile curfew can be upheld when it is limited in time and contains carefully drawn exceptions that leave room for parental supervision and lawful activities.
- An express exception for First Amendment activity weighs against claims that a curfew broadly suppresses protected speech or association.
- Courts may resolve a curfew challenge by assuming a heightened standard of review and deciding the ordinance satisfies it, without definitively deciding whether a particular asserted right (such as intrastate travel) is fundamental.

## Conclusion

In *Qutb v. Bartlett*, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court and upheld Dallas’s juvenile curfew, holding that even if strict scrutiny applied, the City’s interests in juvenile safety and reducing juvenile crime and victimization were compelling and the ordinance was narrowly tailored through limited curfew hours and multiple exceptions, including an exception for First Amendment activity.


Qutb v. Bartlett, 11 F.3d 488 (1993)