City's Limited Curfew During Protests Did Not Violate First Amendment
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of a city in a First Amendment challenge to a curfew order in Knowlton v. City of Wauwatosa.
In 2020, a police officer shot and killed a black teenager. After the District Attorney's (DA) office decided not to criminally charge the officer, and anticipating that this decision might spark violence in the community, the mayor issued a limited curfew order that went into effect after the DA's announcement. The curfew temporarily restricted pedestrian and vehicular traffic on city streets for five nights and ran from 7 pm to 6 am with exceptions for people traveling to and from work, government officials, the press, and social workers.
A group of individuals who attended protests in the city (some of whom had been arrested for violating the curfew) sued the city to challenge the curfew, claiming it violated the First Amendment among other claims. The district court ruled in favor of the city on all claims and the plaintiffs appealed to the Seventh Circuit.
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit agreed with the district court ruling in favor of the city on the plaintiff's First Amendment claims.
First, the Court determined that the city had a "significant government interest" in enacting the curfew to protect the safety of persons and property. The Court noted that a government need not wait until violence or harm materializes to impose safety measures, and that preventative measures to promote public safety are a "basic contribution to government." The Court found the city's public safety concerns to be well founded after the city had experienced civil unrest for months leading up to the curfew. The Court also noted that the neighboring town of Kenosha had seen extensive property damage and serious physical injury in the wake of a police shooting weeks earlier.
Next, the Court found that the curfew was narrowly tailored to keep people off the streets for a short period of time after the DA's announcement, and was not imposed arbitrarily because of a generalized fear amidst nationwide protests. It was also limited in duration, and had exceptions for certain groups of people.
Finally, the Court held that the curfew order left plaintiffs with adequate alternative means of communication because they could protest during the daytime hours, or after the curfew expired.
In sum, the Seventh Circuit ruled in favor of the city on the First Amendment challenge to the curfew.
0 comments:
Post a Comment