errs in supporting its reasoning with the fact that city councils appear to be placed “between a rock and a hard place,” ante at 853-54. While it is true that curfews without exceptions will almost always impermissibly infringe upon substantive constitutional rights and that curfews with exceptions may be subject to vagueness challenges, invalidation of this ordinance is still mandated by our Constitution. “Our Constitution is designed to maximize individual freedoms within a framework of ordered liberty. Statutory limitations on those freedoms are examined for substantive authority and content as well as for definiteness or certainty of expression.” Kolender, 461 U.S. at 357, 103 S.Ct. 1855 (emphasis added); see also Nunez v. City of San Diego, 114 F.3d 935, 943-44 (9th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). “[Ljegislative bodies in draftsmanship
recognizing that plaintiff can bring action under due process clause of state constitution holding that mere neglect for prisoners safety does not amount to a substantive due process violation implying that intent to do harm would be an abuse of government power and amount to a substantive due process violation holding in five separate opinions that  1983 claim based on persons arrest cannot be brought under substantive due process where more specific constitutional provision  fourth amendment  applies recognizing  1983 substantive due process claim recognizing that interpreting curfew to avoid vagueness problems under due process clause may make it more difficult for the statute to pass constitutional muster on substantive grounds