Opinion ID: 2508648
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the sponsored event exception

Text: The ordinance also provides an exception for events sponsored by the Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage School District, a civic organization, or another similar entity that takes responsibility for the minor. [32] The plaintiffs contend that this provision is vague because the ordinance does not specify what sort of entity is similar to a civic organization or what it means for such an organization to take responsibility for the minor. The court in Hutchins addressed a similar vagueness challenge. The Hutchins court found that although the challenged terms might be imprecise, they were not so ambiguous as to affect the curfew ordinance's constitutionality. [33] In this context, the addition of `civic organization, or other similar entity' simply includes within the defense the general class of organizations that may be thought analogous to schools, religious organizations, or governmental entities. [34] We agree with this analysis. While another similar entity and taking responsibility for the minor may not specifically define this exception, the context of the sponsored event exception indicates what sort of activities and events qualify: The activity must be formally authorized, supervised by adults, and sponsored by an organization. Formally authorized, supervised, all-night graduation activities would be covered; a private, all-night graduation party without parental supervision would not. Similarly, a meeting sponsored by the American Civil Liberties Union or the Anchorage School District and supervised by adults to discuss the impact of the curfew on minors' legal rights would be protected under this exception, whereas an informal gathering of students at a coffee shop to discuss the curfew would not be covered under the sponsored event exception. [35] Because the sponsored event exception is sufficiently understandable, this provision is not void for vagueness.