CONSTITUTIONAL LAWCASE BRIEF AND QUESTIONS-
City of Dallas v. Stanglin
CITY OF DALLAS V. STANGLIN (1989) Partial Brief and Questions
FACTS: P Stanglin, who operated a roller rink and A Class E dance hall, filed suit to
prohibit enforcement of a Dallas ordinance which limited age and hours for a Class
E dance hall, on the grounds that it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th
Amendment.(ON THE BASIS OF AGE)
P.H. Trial and appellate courts held the statute was unconstitutional and violated the
equal protection clause. City of Dallas appealed and the U.S. Supreme Court granted
certiorari.
ISSUE #1: WHETHER AN ORDINANCE WHICH IS BASED ON LIMITING AGE
AND HOURS IS A "SUSPECT CLASS" OR INVOLVES A "FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHT" WHICH IS ENTITLED TO THE STRICT SCRUTINY TEST UNDER
THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE?"
ISSUE #2: "WHETHER A LOCAL ORDINANCE WHICH LIMITS AGE AND HOURS
AND DOES NOT INVOLVE A SUSPECT CLASS OR A FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHT VIOLATES THE "RATIONAL BASIS" TEST?"
Write your answers to the following questions to help you analyze Stanglin's arguments, and I will go through
them in class.
Q-1: WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR PLAINTIFF STANGLIN'S CLAIM?
(On what grounds does P Stanglin claim the 14th Amendment is being violated?)
The basis is to the Economic Regulation for the age, which “violated the equal protection
clause of the 14th Amendment.”
Q-2: WHAT TYPE OF "CLASSIFICATION" DOES STANGLIN HAVE TO FIT
INTO IN ORDER TO GET THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF JUDICIAL SCRUTINY
("STRICT SCRUTINIY") TO APPLY?
“Suspect Class”
Q-3: What constitutional rights does P claim are being violated?
1.) Is there a suspect class? No
2.) Does P think there is a "fundamental right" involved? What?
Yes, Law must treat similarly situated people the same unless
there is a “good reason” not to. Along with Freedom of Association
Q-4: What are the 2 kinds of "freedom of association" the Court talks about?
Freedom of Assembly, and expressive association
Q-5: How does the S. Ct. classify association at a dance hall i.e. is it constitutionally
protected?
While it is not directly protected since it is a social association, but the city
did not ban other such establishments that allow for teenagers and adults to
socialize in.
HOLDING ON ISSUE #1: Denied since it has no constitutional protection for dance halls. Ordinance does
not infringe on the First Amendment.
03z2vjvvzd-c1f8808b-5b4a-4366-8a1d-1c7727b5aa1b-8939.doc
