Dance Club Restrictions

[Dr. J]

The city of Omaha, Nebraska, is considering limiting access to after hours dance clubs. Currently, anyone aged 18 and over can dance until 4am, so long as the establishment has a permit.
The city is proposing to restrict after hours dancing so that only those 21 years old and older are allowed inside.
Several of my friends insist that this is some type of constitutional violation, while I'm telling them the city can regulate pretty much anything it wants (within reason, of course), including the age limits and hours of operation of local dance clubs. Look at the city councils' ability to regulate the strip clubs.
Someone else here please give some validity to my point (or tell me I'm incorrect, either way)
Dr. J
[ 31 December 2002: Message edited by: Dr. J ]

 

[Mahan Atma]

Originally posted by Dr. J:
The city of Omaha, Nebraska, is considering limiting access to after hours dance clubs. Currently, anyone aged 18 and over can dance until 4am, so long as the establishment has a permit.
The city is proposing to restrict after hours dancing so that only those 21 years old and older are allowed inside.
Several of my friends insist that this is some type of constitutional violation, while I'm telling them the city can regulate pretty much anything it wants, including the age limits and hours of operation of local dance clubs. Look at the city councils' ability to regulate the strip clubs.

Well I'd hesitate to say that the city can regulate anything it wants, but there's little doubt in my mind that the age restriction is constitutional.
The most obvious challenge would be a 14th Amendment Equal Protection challenge claiming age discrimination, I suppose. The Supreme Court has ruled that age is NOT a protected classification (Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia), as opposed to race or sex, for instance. So the law only has to pass "rational basis" review. (Williamson v. Lee Optical; McGowan v. Maryland.) Almost any justification suffices, even if conjured up after the fact. (FCC v. Beach Communications.) It doesn't take a terribly clever lawyer to do that, so age-based laws are almost never struck down under the U.S. Constitution.
However, perhaps state law or the state constitution has something to say; that would require some research, which I don't have time for at the moment.
[ 31 December 2002: Message edited by: Mahan Atma ]

 

[PottedMeat]

As a general rule, cities have great authority when it comes to zoning ordinances. Damn the man.

 

[Exx_head]

I don't understand why people who know little about the constitution keep saying things are unconstitutional when they don't like them. In this country, you have to be:
18 to vote
21 to drink in most (if not all) states
21 to be tried as an adult (in general)
15 to obtain a learner's permit to drive
16 to obtain a driver's liscense
and the list goes on for hunting liscenses, gun ownership, etc.
No one has been able to shoot these down as unconstitutional, so I doubt some club is going to get shut down for not allowing 18 year olds in.

 

[psychoblast]

I tend to think this SHOULD be struck down, but not sure if it WOULD be.
Here in Las Vegas, the morons on the city council passed an ordinance forbidding girls under 21 from stripping in establishments that serve alcohol. At the same time, the existing laws are that all-nude places CAN'T serve alcohol and topless places CAN serve alcohol. So the end result of the new ordinance is that girls 18 - 20 who want to strip have to go to all nude places instead of topless places.
Meanwhile, girls 18 - 20 can serve liquor in pretty much any other environment so long as it isn't a topless club, so it is not like the city council is trying to shield girls under 21 from exposure to alcohol.
Anyway, at 18 you are an adult. I'd argue laws that treat 18-20 year olds like children compared to 21+ people are arbitrary and unconstitutional. Yeah, the 21+ alcohol age restriction is a bad precedent, but you still have a chance at distinguishing drinking alcohol from dancing at an alcohol free establishment.
It sort of sounds to me like the law is an attempt to indirectly impose a curfew on people 18 - 20 which, given that they are adults who may have a wife and kids to support and a job and be high school graduates, seems pretty fucked up.
~psychoblast~

 

[Dr. J]

Well, the age of legal "adulthood" in Nebraska is 19, not 18, meaning you cannot enter into a contract, sign a lease, anything until you reach 19. States (and cities) have the right and the power to be arbitrary when it comes to defining age limits.
Moreover, cities have an incredible amount of leeway when it comes to defining laws and standards of conduct in their community. Why do you think its legal for one city to impose tougher obsentity laws than the city down the road?
Originally posted by psychoblast

Anyway, at 18 you are an adult. I'd argue laws that treat 18-20 year olds like children compared to 21+ people are arbitrary and unconstitutional. Yeah, the 21+ alcohol age restriction is a bad precedent, but you still have a chance at distinguishing drinking alcohol from dancing at an alcohol free establishment.

Where are you getting this notion that such laws are unconstitutional? There is no constitutional right to drink, to drive, or to even be able to enter these establishments you speak of. While you may not like it, and sometimes it seems unfair, cities are most definitely within their limits when it comes to issues such as this.

 

[psychoblast]

A law does not have to infringe on a protected class to be unconstitutional. It is sufficient that it is arbitrary and capricious.
If the legal age is 19, then the law may not be arbitrary as to 18 year olds, but my argument stands as to 19 & 20 year olds.
Anyway, I'm not saying the law IS unconstitutional, merely that there exists an argument that it is. Just as their exists an argument that it is not. It would be unintelligent for anyone to claim with 100% certainty that this law is or is not constitutional and I did not do so.
~psychoblast~

 

[Mahan Atma]

Originally posted by psychoblast:
A law does not have to infringe on a protected class to be unconstitutional. It is sufficient that it is arbitrary and capricious.

That's the "rational basis" test that I mentioned above. It is almost never enough to strike down a law, because any brain-dead lawyer can come up with a "rational basis".
The problem with 19&20 year-olds versus 18 yr-olds is an underinclusion/overinclusion problem. For rational basis review, this is acceptable (Williamson v. Lee Optical.)
[ 04 January 2003: Message edited by: Mahan Atma ]

 

[psychoblast]

I disagree. I'd argue there is no rational basis for allowing a 21 year old to dance at 3am, but not a 20 year old. Do you have a problem with that? Maybe I'd lose, but so what? It's pathetic to say there is no argument in favor of striking down this law. Maybe you don't think the argument has a good chance of success, but that is your opinion. The argument is there nevertheless.
~psychoblast~

 

[Mahan Atma]

Originally posted by psychoblast:
I disagree. I'd argue there is no rational basis for allowing a 21 year old to dance at 3am, but not a 20 year old. Do you have a problem with that? Maybe I'd lose, but so what? It's pathetic to say there is no argument in favor of striking down this law. Maybe you don't think the argument has a good chance of success, but that is your opinion. The argument is there nevertheless.
~
The problem with 19&20 year-olds versus 18 yr-olds is an underinclusion/overinclusion problem. For rational basis review, this is acceptable; it's not my opinion, it's the law (Williamson v. Lee Optical.)
Basically, the argument is that "you have to draw the line somewhere".