Bykofsky v. Borough of Middletown
Headline: Refused to review a challenge to a rural town’s nonemergency juvenile curfew, leaving lower-court rulings in place and curfew rules affecting minors and parents unreviewed by the Court.
Holding: In a brief order, the Court declined to hear the challenge to the town’s juvenile curfew, leaving the lower-court result in place while dissenting justices urged full review of the constitutional question.
- Local court rulings left in place, so curfew enforcement continues.
- Thousands of small towns may keep juvenile curfews in effect.
- Parents risk penalties for failing to control children during curfew hours.
Summary
Background
Petitioners challenged a nonemergency curfew ordinance in Middletown, Pennsylvania, a rural town of about 10,000 people. The law makes it unlawful for minors to be on the streets during certain hours and penalizes parents who knowingly, or through “inefficient control,” allow their children to be out.
Reasoning
The key question is whether young people have weaker constitutional protection than adults for the simple freedom to leave home and move about. Justice Marshall’s dissent (joined by Justice Brennan) stresses that freedom of movement is a basic liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause (the Constitution’s protection for basic liberties). He explains that laws that seriously limit that freedom must be narrowly tailored to serve a truly compelling state interest, doubts a general curfew would meet that test absent an emergency, and notes prior decisions give mixed guidance about treating children differently.
Real world impact
The Court declined to hear the case, so the lower-court outcome remains in place and the constitutional question is not resolved nationally. Justice Marshall warned the issue matters to thousands of towns with similar laws and that parents and minors could face real consequences under such curfews. Because this was a denial of review rather than a full decision on the law’s constitutionality, the issue could be raised again later.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Marshall would have granted review to decide the constitutional question; Justice White also said he would have granted review and set the case for argument.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?