Abstract
Curfews imposed against an entire civilian population are extremely rare. Despite this, the amount of curfews has recently skyrocketed in the United States as government officials use this sweeping power to respond to emergencies. This Comment evaluates the constitutional rights implicated by general curfew orders, namely the right to travel and the right to speak in public forums. Then, this Comment surveys the current circuit split. Lower courts significantly diverge in their standard of review of curfew orders and apply three very different forms of review: deference, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny. This Comment argues that courts should subject general curfew orders to strict scrutiny because curfews impose direct constraints that abridge fundamental constitutional rights. Additionally, this Comment contends that challenges to general curfews on right to travel grounds are a valid, but neglected, route for petitioners. General curfews directly abridge both intrastate and interstate travel. Moreover, the right to travel provides an independent hook to apply strict scrutiny when a court determines that lesser scrutiny applies on First Amendment grounds.
Start Page
543
Recommended Citation
Greven, Alec
(2026)
"Curfew and Its Constitutional Limits: Analyzing the Judicial Standard of Review for Curfews in Times of Emergency,"
University of Chicago Legal Forum: Vol. 2025, Article 16.
Available at:
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol2025/iss1/16