I would say there’s nothing in the first ten amendments that directly states the government’s ability to have or to not have a curfew, but the 1st amendment would allow the right for someone to peacefully disagree.
The 1st Amendment is your freedom of RAPPS, so it’s freedom of : R - religion A - assembly P - press P - petition S - speech
Generally, city wide curfews such as this are more along the lines of a suggestion or a guideline put in place for safety. If someone decides they want to put their safety at risk, that’s on them. But when you start getting into the other aspects of the 1st amendment (like Petition, Assembly, etc.) you start to get into a place where you might violate other laws.
In other words, it’s likely within the right of those who disagree to express their disagreement, but it’s also within the right of the law enforcement to reprimand them if they directly interfere with the safety of others, like the workers restoring the power, for example.
Like at the end of Scream (1996), they have a city-wide curfew because there’s a killer on the loose. Then all of the teenagers decided to have a curfew party to protest the curfew. If those kids had gotten arrested, it wouldn’t have been directly for having the party (a.k.a. the defiance of the curfew) but they might get arrested for drinking alcohol.
The correct answer is the first choice above, where it reads, 'maturing of rights which a party can legally act upon.'
Vesting of rights is defined as having to provide an immediate
and secured right for the present or future by which it couldn't be taken away
when given by another party.
