Home School Court Report
Current Issue | Archives | Advertising | About | Search
VOLUME XX, NUMBER 5
- disclaimer -
September / October 2004


FEATURES
The Law: A good weapon in the right hands
Third annual essay contest results

Category 1: It took a cow to prove it

Category 2: Wisdom from Grandpa

DEPARTMENTS
Doc's digest
Freedom watch
From the heart

To do good and share what you have

From the director

Impact of the fund

Mission statement of HSF
Across the states
Active cases
Around the globe

Announcing HSLDA Japan

Meet Hiro Inaba

Encouraging homeschool moms
Members only

Questions about the new member rates?

HSLDA membership rate increases
About campus
President's page

The angry child


ET AL.

On the other hand: a Contrario Sensu

Prayer & Praise

HSLDA social services contact policy/A plethora of forms

HSLDA legal inquiries


 «
  LEGAL/LEGISLATIVE UPDATES  

» 


ACROSS THE STATES

AL · CA · CT · ID · IA · KY · MD · NJ · NM · NY · OH · OK · OR · RI · TX · VT · VA · WY

ALABAMA

Daytime curfew defeated

Due to the effective lobbying of homeschooling families, the Montgomery City Council recently voted to uphold the mayor's veto of a daytime curfew ordinance. This saga began on June 2, 2004, when the city council passed a daytime curfew forbidding anyone under the age of 18 from being out in public from 8:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. There were seven exclusions described in the ordinance, none of which permitted a student to be alone in a public place. For example, a 17-year-old could not run an errand for his parent or go to the public library alone during school hours.

Thanks to the leadership of Christian Home Education Fellowship of Alabama, homeschooling families responded to this infringement on their freedom by contacting Mayor Bobby Bright and asking him to veto the ordinance. Home School Legal Defense Association also provided the mayor with a legal memorandum explaining why the enacted ordinance was unconstitutional. The mayor agreed with HSLDA and vetoed the ordinance on June 8, 2004. After heated debate, the city council voted to uphold the mayor's veto on June 15, 2004, by a narrow margin.

Curfew laws restrict the constitutional right to move about freely. Any restriction of a fundamental right must be supported by a compelling governmental interest. Furthermore, the restriction must be as narrow as possible, so that it infringes on citizens' rights as little as possible. Daytime curfews do not meet this requirement. There are less restrictive methods of dealing with truancy and crime, such as enforcing laws that are already on the books.

For more information about daytime curfews, please visit our website at http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000026.asp.

— by Dewitt T. Black