Chicago alderman pledges to fight Mayor Brandon Johnson's vowed curfew veto, won't ‘twist arms'
CHICAGO — As Mayor Brandon Johnson promises to veto the teen curfew ordinance passed by aldermen, the measure's lead sponsor says he will keep fighting to make it law.
Alderman Brian Hopkins, 2nd, won out over Johnson in the City Council on Wednesday when his plan to give Chicago's police superintendent power to declare teen curfews anytime, anywhere passed in a 27-22 vote. But his victory could be fleeting.
Johnson quickly pledged to cast a rare mayoral veto, the city's first since 2006. The planned move means Hopkins must garner votes from 34 aldermen to overrule the mayor, a high bar that would require him to flip as many as seven council members.
Still, Hopkins said Thursday morning he will move ahead in July with a City Council vote on Johnson's anticipated veto. He plans to keep making the case for his ordinance but added that he will not be heavy-handed.
'I'm going to keep pushing back on the deceptive spin, but I'm not going to call my colleagues and twist arms. Everyone is going to vote their conscience on this,' the downtown alderman said.
The Wednesday vote and veto pledge marked decisive steps in Hopkins' two-year push to give police more power to curb the so-called 'teen takeover' youth gatherings that have sometimes ended in high-profile violence, including two Streeterville shootings in Hopkins' ward in recent months.
Youth activists and civil rights groups have criticized the curfew measure as an unfair and unconstitutional crackdown that especially harms Black and Latino teens from poor neighborhoods that offer little safe fun. They also argue that those same teens have been left out of the debate and that aldermen should instead invest money in youth jobs, violence prevention and safe activities.
'Our children are gathering to escape the violence in their neighborhoods, the trouble at home and other conditions that they have no control over,' said Abierre Minor, a 25-year-old appointed by Johnson last year to the Community Commission for Public Safety and Accountability.
Minor recalled speaking after the vote with her 15-year-old sister, who argued media coverage of 'teen takeovers' has been sensationalized and that all people should have the right to gather as they see fit. The police oversight commissioner said she was 'disheartened' by the City Council majority's decision, but praised Johnson's 'swift and strong' response.
'Every year, our decision-makers propose repressive, ineffective policies to address community violence that does nothing but cause confusion and community harm,' Minor said. 'This year, something different happened. We had a leader who decided to break the cycle.'
The Cook County public defender's office and progressive groups have also backed Johnson's stance. Just after the measure passed, Chicago Teachers Union President Stacy Davis Gates urged the mayor, formerly a CTU organizer, to veto it, likening the curfew ordinance to Jim Crow segregation laws.
'The people of Streeterville don't need the police to keep Black youth out of their neighborhood. The people of Chicago need policies and programs that serve and center Black youth,' Davis Gates wrote.
Johnson's administration is currently drafting language and plans to officially veto the measure soon. The mayor had long shared tentative criticism of the potential curfew, but ramped up his opposition to the proposal this week.
He argued after pledging a veto that the curfew ordinance would harm 'trust within communities' as the city's violent crime rates sharply drop, and compared the measure to crime laws 'that have overwhelmingly led to the criminalization and the incarceration of poor people and particularly people of color.'
'Offering up extended police power, without any check or balance, has not boded well for Black people and brown people in this country,' he said.
Hopkins argued Thursday the 'snap curfew' label Johnson and others have used to describe the measure is a misnomer.
The measure requires police to give 30 minutes notice onsite before a curfew is implemented. It also requires the superintendent to consult others to declare a curfew, but gives the top cop final say.
Superintendent Larry Snelling said in court last week he would not use any power allowing him to declare sudden curfews, but suggested he could use the ordinance to declare preemptive curfews days in advance when police learn of planned, potentially chaotic gatherings. He has carefully distanced himself from the political debate in statements.
Johnson has argued he and Snelling are aligned on the matter, but said future superintendents should not have the technical ability to quickly declare curfews with little or no oversight.
A final vote ought to move forward in July, without legislative trickery from either side, Hopkins said.
'That'll put the matter to bed, and I'd rather do that briefly than have it degrade into a parliamentary mud fight,' he said. 'I think at this point I am done having persuasive conversations with my colleagues.'
Much could happen before a mid-July vote that might pressure aldermen to change sides, he added. He cited, as he did during City Council floor debate Wednesday, reports of a large and chaotic teen gathering at North Avenue Beach earlier this week.
Police said they arrested five teens at the beach Tuesday, including three minors, for misdemeanors and citations including battery, resisting arrest and possessing alcohol.
____
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Trump can keep National Guard in Los Angeles, appeals court rules
A federal appeals court in San Francisco said Thursday that President Donald Trump can keep the California National Guard in Los Angeles for now, delivering a win for the president as he aims to use the military to police protests against his deportation efforts. The unanimous decision from the three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit — two of whom were appointed by Trump in his first term and the third appointed by former President Joe Biden — said that Trump appears to have lawfully deployed the National Guard in the city, even though he did not consult California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D).
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
'Laziest Man In The World': Trump Ripped Over 'Pathetic' Complaint About Holidays
President Donald Trump is getting called out on social media after a Juneteenth post in which he railed against the number of holidays in the United States, insisted that workers don't like the days off either, and demanded a 'change.' Trump wrote on his Truth Social website: The president didn't mention Juneteenth in his post, but it came as millions of Americans marked the day, which commemorates the end of slavery in the United States. The White House held no public celebration. Trump, ironically, not only marked Juneteenth during his previous term in office but also campaigned on making it a federal holiday, although that didn't happen until Congress passed a bill in 2021, which was signed into law by then-President Joe Biden. Juneteenth became the 11th federal holiday in the United States, which is not an especially large number compared to other nations. In addition, many businesses remain open and many people work during most U.S. holidays. For example, about six in 10 large employers don't observe Juneteenth, according to USA Today. Trump can't change the number of holidays without an act of Congress, but his threat to do so fired up his critics. They responded: Laziest man in the world wants you to work harder. — Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) June 19, 2025 "Too many non-working holidays-" Sounds like he has his thumb on the t̶h̶r̶o̶a̶t̶ pulse of the American worker. — Christopher Moore (@TheAuthorGuy) June 19, 2025 Trump just said on Truth Social that there are too many 'non-working holidays in America.' Not only is he trying to make you work MORE but also he's taking an apparent dig at Juneteenth. This is coming from the same guy who golfs every weekend. Pathetic. — Harry Sisson (@harryjsisson) June 19, 2025 The fact that he chose Juneteenth to rant about federal holidays tells you everything you need to know about what really bothers him, and it's not the closed businesses. — Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) June 19, 2025 As a worker, I feel I speak for the majority of us when I say: WE WANT MORE NON-WORKING HOLIDAYS!! Especially if they're important days like Juneteenth... — Connor (Percy's Version) 🗡️🏹 (@GreekGeekPJO) June 19, 2025 Trump coming out hard against *Checks notes*Holidays that give workers time off — Polling USA (@USA_Polling) June 19, 2025 First it was our kids had to many toys, now we have to many holidays. 🤦♂️ — Lev Parnas (@levparnas) June 19, 2025 Man who barely shows up for work complains there are too many non-working holidays. — Molly Ploofkins (@Mollyploofkins) June 19, 2025 BREAKING: Trump Rails Against Paid Holidays While Logging Nearly a Year on the Golf CourseDonald Trump is fuming about 'too many non-working holidays' in America—while having spent almost an entire year of his presidency golfing. In a post oozing disdain for workers, he claimed… — P a u l ◉ (@SkylineReport) June 20, 2025 In honor of Juneteenth, Trump says there are too many non-working holidays. This from the guy who golfs more than PGA pro golfers. He could lead by example. Maybe in 2 weeks. — Henry M. Rosenberg (@DoctorHenryCT) June 20, 2025 I don't know ANY workers in America who think we have too many non-working wants more time off of work, not less. — Cryptid Politics 🇺🇸🐊 (@CryptidPolitics) June 19, 2025 let's see, who did this holiday celebrate????🤔 — cmtobin1 (@cmtobin1) June 20, 2025 Trump wasn't complaining about too many holidays on President's Day. — Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) June 19, 2025 Is this how the war on Christmas actually starts? — Brad W. (@bwebbcam) June 19, 2025
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump Allowed to Keep Using National Guard in LA for Now
(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump can continue to use National Guard troops to respond to protests in Los Angeles as a legal challenge over his use of the military proceeds, a federal appeals court ruled. Security Concerns Hit Some of the World's 'Most Livable Cities' JFK AirTrain Cuts Fares 50% This Summer to Lure Riders Off Roads One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports Taser-Maker Axon Triggers a NIMBY Backlash in its Hometown In a win for the White House, a three-judge panel in San Francisco on Thursday said the Trump administration can keep using California National Guard troops to respond to the protests. In effect, it doesn't change the situation on the ground in Los Angeles, where the federal government has been deploying the military for more than a week. Thursday's decision isn't the final ruling on the matter and is likely to be immediately challenged. California could appeal the ruling to the US Supreme Court, or a bigger panel in the same appeals court. The lower court that had ordered the federal government to return control of the troops to the state will also hold a hearing on Friday. California and the Trump administration have been sparring over the federal government's response to the protests, including the deployment of thousands of the state's National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines. California and its Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, have blasted Trump's deployment as a 'power grab' and an unnecessary intrusion on the work of local officials to police the protests. Lawyers for the state also have said it's 'terrifying' that Justice Department lawyers said the presidents actions can't be second-guessed by the courts, and argue that the deployment sets a dangerous precedent. 'While it is disappointing that our temporary restraining order has been stayed pending the federal government's appeal, this case is far from over,' California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. 'While the court did not provide immediate relief for Angelenos today, we remain confident in our arguments and will continue the fight.' The Trump administration has maintained that the president has the power to unilaterally federalize National Guard troops when he determines there is a 'rebellion' or 'invasion' that necessitates military intervention. And presidents are permitted to call up the state troops when 'regular forces' are unable to enforce federal law. Trump hailed the ruling as a 'BIG WIN,' saying in a Truth Social post that calling in the National Guard is a 'core power' of the presidency. Trump added in the post that 'all over the United States, if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done.' The appeals court judges said Trump likely acted lawfully when he federalized the National Guard, but they objected to arguments raised by Justice Department lawyers that his decision cannot be reviewed by the courts. 'We conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority,' the appeals court said in a unanimous ruling late Thursday. The judges also stressed that the decision is limited to whether Trump was allowed to call for the deployment, but does not address 'the nature of the activities in which the federalized National Guard may engage.' 'The court rightly rejected Trump's claim that he can do whatever he wants with the National Guard and not have to explain himself to a court,' Newsom said in a statement. 'The President is not a king and is not above the law. We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens.' The appeals court panel, which heard arguments Tuesday by lawyers from both the Justice Department and California, is comprised of two judges appointed by Trump and one by former President Joe Biden. The court stepped in last week at the administration's request to pauses US District Judge Charles Breyer's order declaring that Trump's deployment without California's consent was 'illegal.' Trump issued a proclamation authorizing their deployment on June 7 and said protests in the city against his deportation initiative represent a form of 'rebellion' against the authority of the federal government. In court filings, lawyers for the administration cited reports of violence and threats against federal property and officers conducting immigration enforcement. Breyer said in his June 12 ruling he was troubled by the idea that a protest against the federal government on its own could 'justify a finding of rebellion.' The case is Newsom v. Trump, 25-3727, US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (San Francisco). --With assistance from Derek Wallbank, Chelsea Mes and Janine Phakdeetham. (Updates with comments from Bonta, Trump, Newsom, starting in sixth paragraph.) Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? How a Tiny Middleman Could Access Two-Factor Login Codes From Tech Giants ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
