Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

City Of Dallas Et Al. v. Stanglin, Individually And Dba Twilight Skating Rink

• 1988 • 490 U.S. 19 • Rehnquist Court
In the case City of Dallas et al. v. Stanglin, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city's ordinance limiting attendance at dance halls to individuals between 14 and 18 years old, excluding adults unless they were parents or guardians accompanying minors. The owner of a for-profit dance hall challenged this law on First Amendment grounds, arguing that it violated his customers' freedom of association rights by preventing them from interacting with people outside their age group. However,...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Rehnquist Court
Term: 1988
Docket: 87-1848
490 U.S. 19
109 S. Ct. 1591
104 L. Ed. 2d 18
1989 U.S. LEXIS 1751
Argued: Mar 01, 1989

City Of Dallas Et Al. v. Stanglin, Individually And Dba Twilight Skating Rink

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case City of Dallas et al. v. Stanglin, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city's ordinance limiting attendance at dance halls to individuals between 14 and 18 years old, excluding adults unless they were parents or guardians accompanying minors. The owner of a for-profit dance hall challenged this law on First Amendment grounds, arguing that it violated his customers' freedom of association rights by preventing them from interacting with people outside their age group. However, the court disagreed and upheld the ordinance as constitutional because it did not infringe upon any fundamental right protected under the Constitution; specifically noting that dancing was not an activity associated with intimate family relationships nor political expression - both areas where freedom-of-association claims had been previously recognized by courts.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for City of Dallas et al. v. Stanglin, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision failed to recognize a significant First Amendment interest in social dancing at public dance halls. He contended that such activities are expressive conduct protected by the Constitution and should not be subject to arbitrary restrictions imposed by local governments without compelling justification. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's narrow interpretation of "expressive association," arguing it undermines an individual’s right to freely associate with others in recreational settings like dance halls or skating rinks, which can foster meaningful relationships and contribute significantly to personal development and self-expression. In his view, this case was about more than just business interests; it involved fundamental rights underpinning American democracy.

Opinion written by Justice WHRehnquist
Decided: Apr 03, 1989
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcript
Argued: Oct 05, 2026
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms