The Chicago City Council took a significant step on June 18 by passing a controversial ‘snap’ curfew ordinance aimed at addressing rising public safety concerns tied to gatherings of young people in the city.
However, just two days later, in a historic move, Mayor Brandon Johnson issued a veto — marking the first time in nearly two decades that a Chicago mayor had taken such action.
On Wednesday, the City Council convened in an effort to overturn the mayor’s veto but ultimately failed to do so, effectively squashing the proposed legislation.
The ordinance, introduced by Ald. Brian Hopkins of the 2nd Ward, was designed to tackle what he termed ‘teen trends,’ referring to incidents where large groups of young people convene in public areas, sometimes leading to violence.
Under the proposed law, the police superintendent would have been empowered to impose curfews with just 30 minutes’ notice after consulting with the deputy mayor of community safety, specifically if there was ‘probable cause’ to believe a mass gathering would occur.
A ‘mass gathering’ was defined in the ordinance as any assembly of 20 or more individuals in public spaces that could potentially lead to substantial harm to public health, safety, or welfare.
Reflecting on the necessity of such powers, Ald. Hopkins indicated that the authority to declare a curfew would be triggered in direct response to real-time events involving youth gatherings.
While Superintendent Larry Snelling had expressed mixed feelings about the 30-minute notice, he did advocate for some form of curfews beyond the current regulations.
In its earlier drafts, the ordinance mandated a joint determination from both the superintendent and the deputy mayor regarding the necessity of a curfew.
However, the final wording of the ordinance raised concerns for some stakeholders, including Alexandra Block, director of the Criminal Legal Systems and Policing Project of ACLU-Illinois.
Block criticized the ordinance for granting excessive power to the superintendent with inadequate oversight, particularly noting its reliance on the term ‘probable cause.’
Traditionally, probable cause refers to a legal standard based on actual past or current behavior, which does not align with the predicted nature of the proposed ordinance that would allow for proactive imposition of curfews.
The differentiation between current curfew laws and the proposed ordinance was also a significant point of discussion.
Currently, unsupervised minors aged 12 and older face a curfew of 10 p.m., while those under 12 are subject to an earlier curfew depending on the day of the week.
If enacted, the snap curfew ordinance would have allowed the police superintendent to declare a curfew at any time, lasting for three hours, with the possibility of extension.
This measure would have been in addition to existing curfews, potentially covering wide areas, from specific neighborhoods to the entire city, including the ‘L’ transit system.
A comparative analysis of similar ordinances across four major U.S. cities — New York, Los Angeles, Houston, and Phoenix — revealed that none of these municipalities possessed an equivalent measure to Chicago’s proposed snap curfew.
While New York City allows the mayor to call for emergency curfews, these apply to everyone and lack the standing citywide curfews present in Chicago.
Houston does offer its mayor the option to establish a tighter curfew during specific hours; however, it mandates a seven-day notice period, unlike the instant implementation envisaged by the Chicago ordinance.
The other cities’ curfew regulations tend to resemble Chicago’s existing structure, typically involving curfews around 10 p.m. until the following morning, with nuanced differences on school nights.
The proposed ordinance contained the same First Amendment protections as current law, safeguarding individuals from curfew enforcement while exercising rights such as free speech and peaceful assembly.
Despite these protective measures, concerns lingered about the potential dissuasion of Black and Brown youths from participating in public gatherings — whether protests or other community-oriented activities.
Block articulated the perspective from ACLU, emphasizing that the ordinance could disadvantage young people of color and send a detrimental message regarding their presence in public spaces in downtown Chicago.
The backdrop to this ongoing discussion is Chicago’s complicated history surrounding First Amendment rights, recent protests such as those during the Democratic National Convention, and subsequent investigations into law enforcement practices during those events.
Amanda Yarusso, a civil rights attorney, raised alarms about the potential for over-policing of Black and Brown teenagers, relating it back to ongoing systemic issues within the Chicago Police Department.
The current situation is further complicated by the fact that the Chicago Police Department is under a federal consent decree, primarily stemming from past incidents involving excessive use of force, such as the 2014 fatal shooting of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald.
As a result of this decree, the CPD is required to implement various reforms concerning policing, especially in relation to youth interactions.
BGA Policy highlighted that the CPD had not fully complied with many stipulations in the consent decree and was considerably behind in several areas concerning youth-related policing.
If the City Council had chosen to override the mayor’s veto, it could have granted powers to the CPD superintendent that extended beyond those of police leaders in other large cities and exacerbated already existing tensions concerning policing practices.
Ultimately, as the City Council failed to overturn the veto, the proposed ordinance remains unratified, leaving the city to continue grappling with how to effectively address youth behavior in public spaces without overreach into their constitutional rights.
As debate continues around public safety measures and their implications for different communities across Chicago, it remains to be seen how the city will navigate these complex challenges moving forward.
image source from：bettergov
