Practice question
A city imposes a juvenile curfew to address documented nighttime victimization. It bars minors from all public places during curfew hours, including necessary medical trips, authorized work and legitimate school or religious activities, without relevant exceptions. The city argues that proof of a compelling child-safety purpose conclusively settles validity. Under SPARK's framework, which response is best?
- Child safety can never be a compelling interest.
- Minors have no fundamental rights, so scrutiny is unnecessary.
- A compelling interest must still be pursued through suitably narrow means; the sweeping coverage and missing safeguards remain material.
- Any exception automatically destroys the safety objective.
- Every juvenile curfew is necessarily unconstitutional.
Legal references
- SPARK v. Quezon City, G.R. No. 225442, August 8, 2017, main decision, strict scrutiny: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/63300
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.