In recent years, a number of local juvenile curfew laws have been challenged on the grounds that the laws violate the First Amendment and other guarantees provided under U.S. and state constitutions. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other civil rights groups have played an active role in these challenges -- cases that have hinged on both the wording of juvenile curfew statutes, and the manner in which the curfew statutes have been enforced by law enforcement officers.

For example, in recent years, the juvenile curfew laws in a number of U.S. cities have been challenged -- and in some instances, overturned by courts -- based on the following legal arguments:

• Under a juvenile curfew law's "exceptions" -- which identify the circumstances under which a minor would not be subject to the curfew law) -- it is too difficult to tell whether certain activities are permitted or prohibited. In legal terms, the argument is that the juvenile curfew statute is "unconstitutionally vague".


• A juvenile curfew law that does not provide a "parental permission" exception constitutes unwarranted government interference with parents' rights to control the upbringing of their children.


• A juvenile curfew is unconstitutional in its enforcement because police officers are targeting juveniles based on race.


• A juvenile curfew law amounts to the unlawful imposition of martial law, and violates constitutional rights to free interstate travel.