Supreme Court Lets Stand Curfew on Dallas Youths

The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave a boost to the growing number of cities that enforce curfews for teen-agers when it rejected a challenge to a Dallas law that generally requires those under 17 to be off the streets after 11 p.m. on weekdays and midnight on weekends.

Without a dissenting vote, the high court refused to hear an appeal filed on behalf of three young people and their parents who said that the city law “convicts the innocent . . . and broadly stifles fundamental liberties.”

Although the court did not explain its decision, in earlier rulings the justices have said that the First Amendment does not give teen-agers a “generalized right of social association” that permits them to be out after hours. Moreover, official discrimination based on age is permissible, the court has said.

Lawyers in the case said that curfews to combat juvenile crime exist in as many as 1,000 cities, including Los Angeles, Norwalk, Inglewood, Santa Monica and Long Beach.

While Tuesday’s action is not a binding national ruling, it strongly suggests that the high court will not strike down curfews as broadly unconstitutional. However, some lower courts have invalidated curfews that do not permit exceptions for teen-agers who work or are accompanied by their parents.

Two other decisions also restrict First Amendment rights.

In a case that yielded four separate opinions, the high court ruled that public employers may fire workers whose job complaints could affect the morale of fellow employees. So long as the manager makes a “reasonable” effort to investigate what was said, the manager can then dismiss a disgruntled worker to ensure that the complaints do not “detract from the agency’s effective operation,” the court said.

The case (Waters vs. Churchill, 92-1450) sought to clarify the free speech rights of public employees, such as teachers, nurses, police officers and state workers.

The First Amendment severely restricts the government’s power to pass laws infringing on free speech, but government officials can limit the free speech rights of their employees.

The court in 1968 said that a public school board could not fire a teacher for writing a letter to a newspaper complaining about the board’s curriculum policies. But in a 1983 decision, the court cut back on free speech rights by stating that a public employee who voices internal complaints can be fired.

In Tuesday’s decision, seven justices agreed only that the nursing supervisor at a public hospital could dismiss a disgruntled nurse for her on-the-job griping, so long as the supervisor first made a “reasonable” effort to learn who said what to whom.

In a separate First Amendment case, the justices allowed government-sponsored fairs, carnivals and parades to keep out groups whose message is deemed “inappropriate.”

The justices refused to hear an appeal filed by anti-abortion activists who claimed that their free speech rights were violated when they were excluded from a city-sponsored festival.

Frankfort, Ky., stages a Great Pumpkin Festival each October.

In 1990, a local anti-abortion group applied for a booth to distribute plastic models of fetuses, but fair sponsors deemed such political advocacy inappropriate. The group also denied booths to two groups who support abortion rights.

The Kentucky Supreme Court upheld the fair sponsor’s authority to restrict participation to nonpolitical groups, and only Justice Sandra Day O’Connor voted to hear the appeal in the case (Capital Area Right to Life vs. Downtown Frankfort, 93-1201).

In the curfew case, lawyers said that the Dallas law may have won approval in part because it contains so many exceptions.

The Dallas curfew was enacted in 1991 but exemptions were added in 1992. For example, it exempts young people who are accompanied by a parent or guardian, are running an errand or are out because of an emergency.

The curfew also does not apply to those who are traveling for work reasons or attending a school, religious or civic function. Moreover, children are allowed on the sidewalks in front of their homes or a neighbor’s home.

Fines of up to $500 can be assessed against youths as well as their parents and the owners of establishments who serve minors after hours.

In November, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled that the Dallas law is justified by the city’s “compelling interest” in reducing juvenile crime and in “promoting juvenile safety and well-being.” It cited statistics showing that murders, assaults and rapes occur most often between 11 p.m. and 1 a.m.

The case (Qutb vs. Bartlett, 93-1571) was dismissed by the high court without comment on Tuesday.

A number of California cities have curfew laws, but because such programs tend to be labor intensive, enforcement has depended to a great extent on local police priorities and cost considerations. Los Angeles, for instance, has had a longstanding 10 p.m. curfew for juveniles, but enforcement has been sporadic. Officers have used the curfew mainly as a tool to deter gang violence in targeted areas of the city.

Smaller cities, however, have in recent years increasingly turned to curfews to combat street crime and reduce the number of young victims of random violence. Most, like the Dallas law, make exceptions for youths who are returning from work or running an errand with a parent’s permission.

Norwalk’s four-year-old program, officials say, averages about 20 violators a week, as does a similar program established three months ago in Long Beach. In Inglewood, where an ambitious, 2 1/2-month-old curfew has resulted in the arrest of 120 teen-agers since March, Councilman Jose Fernandez--a high school teacher who pushed the ordinance--hailed the high court’s action.

“I think the Supreme Court has reaffirmed society’s right to make sure that parents are responsible for their kids. At least that’s the message the decision sends to me--it says we can legally hold parents responsible.”

Times staff writer Shawn Hubler in Los Angeles contributed to this story.

* RULING ON DAMS: States may require hydroelectric projects to preserve fish habitats, justices rule. A3