Opinion ID: 2630104
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Doe's Equal Protection Claim

Text: Doe argues that the ordinance is unconstitutional because it denies him equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; however, his basis for this claim is unclear. Doe's apparent justification for this challenge is based on its restriction of a minor's right of free movement. This theory appears to be drawn from the Nunez case, where the Ninth Circuit found that because age was not a suspect classification, the only way strict scrutiny review could apply would be through infringement on the fundamental right of free movement. 114 F.3d at 944. While this is true, it is incorrect to label this analysis as an equal protection analysis. Instead, the issue should be approached as a substantive due process issue because it involves the potential denial of fundamental rights. The Due Process Clause provides heightened protection against government interference with fundamental rights and liberties. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 2267-68, 138 L.Ed.2d 772, 787 (1997). In addition to the freedoms explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that other rights may be fundamental and subject to heightened scrutiny. Id. In order to determine whether a right is fundamental, a two-step analysis is undertaken. Id. First, the right must be shown objectively to `be deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition' and `implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,' such that `neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed,' Id. at 720-21, 117 S.Ct. at 2268, 138 L.Ed.2d at 787-88 (quoting Moore v. City of E. Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503, 97 S.Ct. 1932, 1937-38, 52 L.Ed.2d 531, 539-40 (1977); Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325, 58 S.Ct. 149, 151-52, 82 L.Ed. 288, 292 (1937)). Second, [the Court has] required, in substantive-due-process cases, a `careful description' of the asserted fundamental liberty interest. Id. In determining whether a right is fundamental, [o]ur Nation's history, legal traditions, and practices thus provide the crucial `guideposts for responsible decisionmaking.' Id. (quoting Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125, 112 S.Ct. 1061, 1068, 117 L.Ed.2d 261, 273 (1992)). The Ninth Circuit based its finding of a fundamental right to travel on a few lines in the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Papachristou, in which the Court stated: [T]hese activities are historically part of the amenities of life as we have known them. They are not mentioned in the Constitution or in the Bill of Rights. These unwritten amenities have been in part responsible for giving our people the feeling of independence and self-confidence, the feeling of creativity. 405 U.S. at 164, 92 S.Ct. at 844, 31 L.Ed.2d at 116-17; Nunez, 114 F.3d at 944. By these activities, the Court was referring to walking, strolling, idling, wandering, or loafing, from which the Ninth Circuit concluded there was a fundamental right to freedom of movement. The only other context where the Court has examined movement as a fundamental right is in the context of travel. See Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 1329, 22 L.Ed.2d 600, 612 (1969) (Our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement.). The Supreme Court has refused to draw a distinction between intrastate and interstate travel. See Mem'l Hosp. v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250, 255-56, 94 S.Ct. 1076, 1081, 39 L.Ed.2d 306, 313-14 (1974) (Even were we to draw a constitutional distinction between interstate and intrastate travel, a question we do not now consider. ...). The Memorial Hospital statement seems to be a departure from the Court's earlier position in United States v. Wheeler, in which the Court stated: In all the states, from the beginning down to the adoption of the Articles of Confederation the citizens thereof possessed the fundamental right, inherent in citizens of all free governments, peacefully to dwell within the limits of their respective states, to move at will from place to place therein, and to have free ingress thereto and egress therefrom, with a consequent authority in the States to forbid and punish violations of this fundamental right. 254 U.S. 281, 293, 41 S.Ct. 133, 134, 65 L.Ed. 270, 273 (1920). However, the Wheeler decision was later limited to its facts in United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 759 n. 16, 86 S.Ct. 1170, 1179 n. 16, 16 L.Ed.2d 239, 250 n. 16 (1966). Further, language in Jones v. Helms recognizes the power of the State to limit travel, directly contradicting Wheeler. 452 U.S. 412, 419, 101 S.Ct. 2434, 2440, 69 L.Ed.2d 118, 125 (1981) (The right of the citizen to migrate from state to state which,... is shown by our precedents to be one of national citizenship, is not, however, an unlimited one. In addition to being subject to all constitutional limitations imposed by the federal government, such citizen is subject to some control by state governments.) (quoting Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, 184, 62 S.Ct. 164, 172, 86 L.Ed. 119, 131 (1941) (Jackson, J., concurring)). Consequently, although the Ninth Circuit assumes that all freedom of movement is a fundamental right, there may in fact be a difference in the treatment of different types of movement, depending on their nature. The issue is far from clear. Further, even if movement is a fundamental right, the scope of protection of the rights afforded to juveniles is not always coextensive with the protection afforded the rights of adults. For example, in Schall v. Martin, the Supreme Court noted that [t]he State has `a parens patriae interest in preserving and promoting the welfare of the child.' 467 U.S. 253, 263, 104 S.Ct. 2403, 2409, 81 L.Ed.2d 207, 216 (1984) (quoting Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 766, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 1401, 71 L.Ed.2d 599, 615 (1982)). As a result of this interest, although children generally are protected by the same constitutional guarantees against governmental deprivations as are adults, the State is entitled to adjust its legal system to account for children's vulnerability and their needs for `concern, ... sympathy, and ... paternal attention.' Bellotti, 443 U.S. at 635, 99 S.Ct. at 3044, 61 L.Ed.2d at 808 (quoting McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528, 550, 91 S.Ct. 1976, 1989, 29 L.Ed.2d 647, 663-64 (1966) (plurality opinion)). In addition, [s]tates validly may limit the freedom of children to choose for themselves in the making of important, affirmative choices with potentially serious consequences. ... [because] minors often lack the experience, perspective, and judgment to recognize and avoid choices that could be detrimental to them. Id. It is common for states to vindicate this interest by requiring parental consent before minors may engage in activities that could be detrimental to them. Id. at 637, 99 S.Ct. at 3045, 61 L.Ed.2d at 809-10. Bellotti is a prime example of this interest, as it holds that the fundamental right to control one's own procreative activities was outweighed by the State's interest in protecting minor's from potentially detrimental action, resulting in a finding that a parental notice requirement for abortions was constitutional. Id. at 649, 99 S.Ct. at 3051, 61 L.Ed.2d at 817. Informed by the nature of the right at issue and the treatment of that right when exercised by a minor, this Court must determine whether infringement of the right of movement by the Ordinance is sufficiently justified by the City of Wendell's interest in enacting a juvenile curfew ordinance. Assuming arguendo that the right to all forms of travel is a fundamental right, the Ordinance should be subjected to strict scrutiny. Unquestionably ... a government practice or statute which restricts `fundamental rights' ... is to be subjected to `strict scrutiny' and can be justified only if it furthers a compelling government purpose and, even then, only if no less restrictive alternative is available. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 357, 98 S.Ct. 2733, 2782, 57 L.Ed.2d 750, 813 (1979). However, because the Ordinance is targeted at juveniles, the principles articulated above concerning the State's interest in the protection of children must also be considered. Doe has recognized, as have courts that have dealt with juvenile curfews, that municipalities have a substantial interest in preventing juvenile crime and victimization, along with preserving the health and safety of their citizens. See, e.g., Nunez, 114 F.3d at 947. Also, as pointed out in Doe's brief, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the physical and psychological well-being of minors is a compelling government interest. See Sable Commc'ns, 492 U.S. at 126, 109 S.Ct. at 2836-37, 106 L.Ed.2d at 105. Consequently, there is no serious doubt that the government has a compelling interest; instead, Doe argues that the Ordinance is not the least restrictive means of carrying out that interest. As indicated by Maricopa County, Jones, and Wheeler, the U.S. Supreme Court has not clearly defined the contours of the right to travel other than finding that there is a right to interstate travel. Since the Court has not clearly articulated a right to intrastate travel, the possible impact of the Ordinance on intrastate movement cannot be said to violate the narrow-tailoring requirement. Further, given the substantial State interest in preventing juveniles from making decisions that could be detrimental to their growth and development, the breadth of the Ordinance is the most effective means of effectively protecting juveniles. The Ordinance already allows parents to exempt their children from the Ordinance when they determine that the children have legitimate business during curfew hours. This is consistent with the Bellotti recognition that the State may work together with parents in order to protect children from harm. Accordingly, we find that the Ordinance is enacted through the least restrictive means necessary to vindicate the government interest at issue. As a result, the Ordinance does not result in the deprivation of a fundamental right.