No. 23-646

Devon Tinius, et al. v. Luke Choi, et al.

Lower Court: District of Columbia
Docketed: 2023-12-14
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: civil-liberties civil-rights constitutional-rights curfew curfew-law due-process free-speech fundamental-rights overbreadth overbreadth-doctrine vagueness void-for-vagueness
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw SocialSecurity FirstAmendment DueProcess FourthAmendment CriminalProcedure Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2024-02-16
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the District of Columbia's curfew law is unconstitutional because it violates fundamental rights and because it is overbroad and void for vagueness

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the District of Columbia’s curfew law is unconstitutional because it violates fundamental rights and because it is overbroad and void for vagueness.

Docket Entries

2024-02-20
Petition DENIED.
2024-01-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/16/2024.
2023-12-18
Waiver of right of respondent District of Columbia, Luke Choi, Carlton Smith, Jose Maneechai, Jermaine Perez, Carlin Kern, Briana Varga to respond filed.
Main DocumentMain Document
2023-12-12
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 16, 2024)
PetitionCertificate of Word CountProof of ServicePetitionCertificate of Word CountProof of Service

Attorneys

Devon Tinius, et al.
James Arthur DeVita — Petitioner
James Arthur DeVita — Petitioner
District of Columbia, Luke Choi, Carlton Smith, Jose Maneechai, Jermaine Perez, Carlin Kern, Briana Varga
Holly Michelle Johnson — DC Office of the Attorney General, Respondent
Holly Michelle Johnson — DC Office of the Attorney General, Respondent