ABSTRACT
Many US communities have enacted local ordinances making it illegal for minors to be outdoors during specified hours, a trend that increased markedly during the early 1990s. Proponents of juvenile curfews believe these measures reduce youth crime, protect juveniles from victimization, and help parents assert control over difficult children. The legal challenges most often raised against juvenile curfew ordinances are that they violate minors' right to freedom of movement. The right to move about is not enumerated in the Constitution, but a right to travel and to movement has been recognized as arising as a corollary of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments. Some courts have relied upon the overbreadth doctrine to invalidate juvenile curfews that fail to allow necessary exceptions for participating in activities protected by the First Amendment, such as attending after-hours meetings or rallies. The need for various exceptions to a blanket curfew generates the related problem of vagueness.
