## Facts

- Charlottesville enacted a revised juvenile nocturnal curfew ordinance applicable to children under age 17.
- The curfew barred covered minors from being in public places from midnight–5:00 a.m. on weeknights and 1:00–5:00 a.m. on weekends.
- The ordinance included exceptions allowing a minor to be in public during curfew hours when, among other things, accompanied by a parent; running a parental errand with a signed note; working; attending supervised school, religious, or civic activities; traveling interstate; on the sidewalk adjacent to the minor’s residence; involved in an emergency; or exercising a First Amendment right.
- The City stated the ordinance’s purposes as reducing juvenile violence and crime, protecting juveniles from becoming crime victims, and strengthening parental responsibility.
- Plaintiffs (juveniles, an 18-year-old, and parents) sued alleging violations of juveniles’ First Amendment and substantive due process rights, parents’ rights to direct upbringing, and the adult plaintiff’s associational rights.
- The district court denied injunctive relief and upheld the ordinance; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the juvenile curfew ordinance violated minors’ First Amendment rights or substantive due process liberty interests.
2. Whether the ordinance impermissibly burdened parents’ fundamental right to direct the upbringing and care of their children.
3. Whether the ordinance unconstitutionally infringed an 18-year-old’s First Amendment associational rights with minors subject to the curfew.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment upholding the ordinance.
- The court held the ordinance did not violate juveniles’ First Amendment rights, emphasizing its limited hours, multiple exceptions, and an express exception for First Amendment activity.
- The court rejected a claim that minors have a fundamental right to be in public during late-night hours free of curfew regulation and found the ordinance a permissible regulation tied to public safety and juvenile welfare.
- The court held the ordinance did not unconstitutionally interfere with parental child-rearing rights because it left parents significant discretion within the ordinance’s exception structure and supported parental control.
- The court held any impact on the adult plaintiff’s associational opportunities was incidental to the lawful regulation of minors and was constitutionally permissible.

## Legal Principles

- Government has greater latitude to regulate minors’ conduct than adults’ conduct, particularly in the interest of public safety and child welfare.
- A content-neutral time-based restriction that contains a clear exception for First Amendment activity and leaves practical alternatives for protected activity may be upheld when substantially related to legitimate governmental objectives.
- Substantive due process does not require recognition of a fundamental right for minors to remain in public late at night; limited curfew restrictions with tailored exceptions may be constitutional when justified by crime-prevention and protection interests.
- Parental rights, though fundamental, are not violated by a curfew that does not substantially displace parental authority and preserves meaningful avenues for parents to authorize permitted activities.
- Incidental burdens on an adult’s association resulting from a lawful regulation of minors are generally insufficient to invalidate the regulation absent a direct and substantial infringement.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit upheld Charlottesville’s juvenile curfew ordinance, concluding that its narrow late-night scope, extensive exceptions (including an explicit First Amendment exception), and demonstrated connection to crime prevention, child protection, and parental responsibility rendered it consistent with the First Amendment and substantive due process, and not an unconstitutional intrusion on parental or adult associational rights.


Schleifer ex rel. Schleifer v. City of Charlottesville, 159 F.3d 843 (4th Cir. 1998)