Devon Tinius v. Luke Choi, 77 F.4th 691

Background:

In late May–early June 2020, mass protests in D.C. followed George Floyd’s killing; concurrent rioting, arson, looting, and vandalism prompted emergency measures.
Mayor Bowser issued a one-night curfew on May 31 (11:00 P.M.–6:00 A.M.), then a two-night curfew on June 1 beginning at 7:00 P.M.; the June 1 Order barred virtually all public activity at night ("walk, bike, run, loiter, stand, or motor") with narrow exemptions.
Plaintiffs (Devon Tinius and six others) were peacefully protesting near Lafayette Park after curfew hours on June 1, were arrested for violating the curfew, detained overnight, and later had charges dismissed.
Plaintiffs sued officers and D.C. under § 1983 and common law for First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations, alleging the curfew was an invalid speech restriction and unconstitutionally vague (esp. the term "loitering").
The district court dismissed; on de novo review the D.C. Circuit affirmed, holding the June 1 Order a valid time, place, and manner restriction that gave fair notice and that the arrests were supported by probable cause.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the June 1 curfew is a content-based restriction requiring strict scrutiny	Tinius: they were engaged in protected political expression, so the curfew should face strict scrutiny	District: curfew is facially content-neutral emergency measure to protect public safety and health	Court: content-neutral; apply intermediate scrutiny (time, place, manner)
Whether the curfew is narrowly tailored and leaves ample alternatives	Tinius: order not narrowly tailored; should have exempted peaceful protestors	District: temporary, limited nighttime ban calibrated to curb nighttime violence and COVID risk; daytime/evening alternatives existed	Court: narrowly tailored and left ample alternative channels (daytime and subsequent nights)
Vagueness challenge to the term "loitering" in the Order	Tinius: "loitering" is vague and invites arbitrary enforcement	District: curfew prohibits broad nighttime public activity; term read in context gives fair notice and limits discretion	Court: not unconstitutionally vague; read in context the Order gives fair notice and does not vest impermissible discretion
Whether arrests lacked probable cause or involved excessive force	Tinius: arrests were unlawful because the curfew was invalid; officers should have allowed dispersal; force claims inadequately alleged	District: arrests lawful under the curfew; no adequate factual allegations of excessive or unreasonable force	Court: probable cause existed (presence in public during curfew); force claims conclusory and dismissed

Key Cases Cited

United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (establishes framework for conduct-related speech restrictions)
Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (time, place, manner intermediate-scrutiny test)
Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (standards for content-neutral regulation review)
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (definition of content-based regulation)
Hutchins v. District of Columbia, 188 F.3d 531 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (juvenile curfew and First Amendment exceptions)
Menotti v. City of Seattle, 409 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2005) (upholding temporary access restrictions amid protest violence)
City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (vagueness doctrine applied to loitering statute)
Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (invalidating vagrancy/loitering laws for vagueness)
Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (contextual notice and permissible limits on enforcement discretion)
Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (timing and place limits on protected speech)
Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288 (content-neutral time/place restrictions upheld)
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (contextual reading of restriction and notice)
Amobi v. D.C. Dep't of Corrections, 755 F.3d 980 (probable cause and false arrest analysis)