City Council to consider curfew compromise
A push for an 8pm teen curfew downtown has morphed into a new measure that would let the Chicago Police Department impose "as needed" curfews in any part of the city to address "teen takeovers."
Why it matters: A blanket downtown curfew could have severely curtailed teens' ability to visit the city center, but it could have also made concerned downtown residents and businesses feel heard after violent incidents during recent takeovers.
Backstory: Ald. Brian Hopkins introduced the measure last month in response to recent takeovers, but Mayor Brandon Johnson made his opposition clear.
In recent days, however, Hopkins says he worked with the mayor and police superintendent Larry Snelling to find a compromise.
Zoom in: The new proposal would allow district commanders or the superintendent to call a curfew at the location and time of their choice.
What they're saying:"We still have details to discuss because even some of my strong supporters have questions," Hopkins tells Axios, noting that he has 30 council co-signers, enough to pass the measure.
"But we do have to expedite this because warm temperatures are coming soon and with it comes [more takeovers]."
The other side:"It is troubling that the City Council would consider giving one person — whether the CPD superintendent or a district commander — the ability to enforce a curfew at any point, at any time without warning or notice," Ed Yohnka, ACLU-Illinois spokesperson, tells Axios.
"Moreover, the proposal does not contain necessary exceptions for young people engaged in First Amendment activity, attending religious services and other protected endeavors."
Yohnka says the proposal won't make the city safer and will lead to costly legal challenges. Additionally, he says, CPD already has tools to disperse crowds.
Johnson's office released a statement Wednesday saying he is "supportive of the efforts to find a compromise and looks forward to continued conversations on this important issue."
What's next: Hopkins said he'll submit the plan for a vote in the Public Safety committee after discussing it more with co-signers. A full council vote is expected at the May 21 meeting.
In other council news: A joint committee Wednesday delayed consideration of a measure to create a city-funded nonprofit to fund Green Social Housing, saying it needs more modifications.
As expected, the council voted to pass a resolution to discourage city officials from hiring those who took part in the Jan. 6 insurrection in the U.S. Capitol.
Meanwhile: Axios spotted former Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez on the council floor before the meeting and asked about rumors that he might run for office again. Gutierrez wouldn't confirm the rumors but said:
"I have been doing a lot of listening and people have been telling me they miss me and … my loud voice. They say they are sick of the chaos and the fear, and they haven't yet heard a strong organized response to it."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
30 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
First Amendment lawsuit claims R.I. school district blocked a critic from social media accounts
The lawsuit argues that this 'censorship' violates Mayer's First Amendment rights to speak, and to petition the government for redress of grievances. Advertisement 'Just as public officials may not preclude persons from participating in the public comment portion of a town hall meeting based on their viewpoints or arbitrarily deny members of the public access to the meeting, Superintendent Bartz cannot ban users from the @SmithfieldSuper X account page because she dislikes their opinions or require formal approval in order to allow them access,' the lawsuit states. Get Rhode Map A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State. Enter Email Sign Up Bartz issued a statement Monday, saying the school district was aware of the lawsuit but has not been served with the legal documents yet. 'We cannot comment on specifics of any pending litigation,' Bartz said. 'We take our responsibility to serve and communicate with our community seriously. Our district remains committed to maintaining open and respectful communication with all families and members of the Smithfield community.' Advertisement The lawsuit says that both X accounts are used to announce and describe school district policies and office operations, share content produced for the town's schools, and communicate with constituents. The lawsuit argues that access to such official accounts cannot be limited based on the identity or viewpoint of those seeking access. The suit asks the US District Court in Providence to declare the blocking of Mayer's access unconstitutional, and to issue an injunction prohibiting officials from banning anyone else 'on the basis of viewpoint.' 'I'm pursuing this case because I think it's the right thing to do,' Mayer said in a statement. 'The school district is doing the wrong thing by restricting access to their accounts. All of the public deserves access to their social media pages and the information they post.' David Cass, and ACLU cooperating attorney, said, 'Access to a city or town's social media accounts for information and comment is crucial for citizens to engage in discourse with their representatives. Improper restrictions of social media accounts by cities and towns hinder open discourse and access for meaningful participation with our government and diminishes our democracy.' Edward Fitzpatrick can be reached at
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
Chicago responds to President Donald Trump's aggressive immigration raids with protests. Here's what we know.
Chicago is responding to President Donald Trump's aggressive immigration raids with protests that began Sunday. Two more are planned for Monday and Tuesday nights. Tonight's protest is to be held in front of the Chicago Police Department headquarters to denounce alleged cooperation of Chicago police with federal agents arrests last week as they detained immigrants outside a U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement office on the Near South Side. The Police Department has denied that officers aided the federal agents. The immigration sweep resulted in a physical clash between the agents and community organizers and several Chicago aldermen, and advocates estimate at least 20 people were rounded up during the surprise check-ins last Wednesday at the federal agency's Intensive Supervision Appearance Program offices in Chicago. Protesters tonight plan to gather at 3510 S. Michigan Ave. at 6 p.m. Chicago organizers are also planning to protest Trump's extraordinary deployment of the National Guard over the weekend in Los Angeles to confront immigration protesters demonstrating against Trump's immigration crackdown in the region. The protest is planned for 5:30 p.m. at Federal Plaza on Tuesday. 'What we saw last week and over the weekend was not lawful enforcement. It was a belligerent powder grab,' said U.S Rep. Jesus 'Chuy' Garcia Monday morning at a rally in Daley Plaza with other other immigration advocates and elected officials. 'ICE raids, people abducted from jobs, from homes, from community spaces ripping parents apart from their children, kidnapping people from showing up to what they thought was a routine check in at ICE. National guard patrolling our community like we are the aggressors. This is cruelty with intent.' 'We have a message for you,' the Democrat added. 'We are not going anywhere.' The protests Monday and Tuesday follow the rally held Sunday when dozens of immigrant advocates gathered on the Lower West Side to call for an end to aggressive immigration raids in Chicago. The light rain did not dampen the spirits of demonstrators, who led a march down Cermak Road following the rally, ending at Benito Juarez Community Academy. 'I'm proud to be an immigrant, and we are not criminals,' said Ald. Byron Sigcho-Lopez, 25th, whose ward includes the Lower West Side. 'We saw the shameful events in our city early this week, and we continue to see the shameful actions in Los Angeles. Full solidarity to all the people in L.A., all the oppressed people who are fighting for dignity and respect.' California Gov. Gavin Newsom said he planned to file a lawsuit Monday against Trump's actions. The deployment appeared to be the first time in decades that a state's National Guard was activated without a request from its governor, a significant escalation against those who have sought to hinder the administration's mass deportation efforts. 'Commandeering a state's National Guard without consulting the Governor of that state is illegal and immoral,' Newsom, a Democrat, told MSNBC on Sunday. The Guard was deployed specifically to protect federal buildings, including the downtown detention center where protesters concentrated. The arrival of the National Guard followed two days of protests that began Friday in downtown Los Angeles before spreading Saturday to Paramount, a heavily Latino city south of the city, and neighboring Compton. Federal agents arrested immigrants in LA's fashion district, in a Home Depot parking lot and at several other locations on Friday. The next day, they were staging at a Department of Homeland Security office near another Home Depot in Paramount, which drew out protesters who suspected another raid. Federal authorities later said there was no enforcement activity at that Home Depot. The weeklong tally of immigrant arrests in the LA area climbed above 100, federal authorities said. Many more were arrested while protesting, including a prominent union leader who was accused of impeding law enforcement. The last time the National Guard was activated without a governor's permission was in 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to protect a civil rights march in Alabama, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. On Sunday, Gov. JB Pritzker added his name to a statement from Democratic governors calling Trump's deployment of the National Guard 'an alarming abuse of power.' 'Governors are the Commanders in Chief of their National Guard and the federal government activating them in their own borders without consulting or working with a state's governor is ineffective and dangerous. Further, threatening to send the U.S. Marines into American neighborhoods undermines the mission of our service members, erodes public trust, and shows the Trump administration does not trust local law enforcement,' the statement said, which was also signed by Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. 'It's important we respect the executive authority of our country's governors to manage their National Guards,' it said, 'and we stand with Governor Newsom who has made it clear that violence is unacceptable and that local authorities should be able to do their jobs without the chaos of this federal interference and intimidation.'
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Democrats' delusions go far deeper than Biden — but will the party ever learn?
If you haven't read the new book by CNN's Jake Tapper and Axios's Alex Thompson, 'Original Sin,' you should. The book details how former President Biden's top aides, advisers and media contacts lied to the American people about the president's fitness for office and his suitability as a candidate, and argues that this series of cover-ups is ultimately responsible for President Trump's 2024 victory. If its revelations are even half true (and there is every reason to believe they are truer than that), this book should chill and sober Democrats, independents and anyone else who would prefer an alternative to Trump's GOP. 'Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again' raises one profound question with implications that extend far beyond 2024 or even 2028: Why did top Democrats think that they not only could but should shoehorn a sadly diminished and dangerously unfit Biden into a second presidential term? Here's one answer: Democrats' perception of their own virtue has somehow become inextricable from their unwillingness to acknowledge reality as it actually is, rather than as they would like it to be. It would have been quite convenient if Biden circa 2024 was in fact indistinguishable from Biden circa 2016 or even 2020. The fact that this was obviously not the case did not deter Democrats' insistence on it as not just true but unquestionable. The depth of this problem for the party cannot be overstated. The definitional tic of today's Democrats is a belligerent unwillingness (which ultimately seems to beget a helpless inability) to acknowledge any truth that they find inconvenient or troubling. Here's what I'm talking about: Many Democrats will still maintain that Michael Brown had his hands up when Darren Wilson shot him. They will still argue that coronavirus could not have come from a lab in China, and they will maintain that it fully warranted the closing of schools. They hold fast to the idea that traditional masculinity and 'cisgender' normativity are social constructs that can ultimately be eradicated via progressive social programming. They will not abandon the notion that biologically male transgender athletes may fairly compete as female athletes. Many influential Democrats remain unwilling or unable to acknowledge that each of these statements has been proven demonstrably false. The sad irony, of course, is that elite Democrats' insistence on collective delusion with respect to such matters leads, inevitably, exactly where their lies about Biden did: to reactionary backlash. Because they did not insist on a timely, competitive primary to replace Biden, the U.S is stuck with Trump. Because they did not correct the lies and check the excesses of Black Lives Matter and its apologists in K-12 and higher education, we are left with decreased public safety and increased racial tensions. Because they did not ask the correct questions about COVID but parroted the mantra 'trust the science' in response to answers from those who did, we are left with an academic achievement gap that will disproportionately affect low-income, non-white students for the rest of their lives. Because they did not concede the biological facts of dimorphic sex and of characterological and psychological differences between most men and most women, we are left with decreasing societal acceptance for homosexual Americans and misogynistic attempts to regressively erase intragroup variance among women. I know that many of my fellow Democrats are primed to reply: 'But that's not fair! They are the ones who elected Trump, and who are harboring these racists and misogynists, and you blame us?' Well, yes. Here's why: By denying realities they find unsavory, Democrats leave any legitimate claim of truth to Republicans. And MAGA embraces that truth — with a literal vengeance. The Republicans' manner of denying reality is to wildly overstate it. So, for today's manosphere, for example, women are not just different from men on average, but so entirely unlike men that they should all, when possible, reflexively eschew any professional ambition in favor of 'tradwifery.' If Democrats did not deny fundamental truths altogether, fewer people would accept Republicans' bastardizations of them. Can Tapper and Thompson's book be positioned as one that uses Biden as a case study to help Democrats see that we gain nothing by denying reality, and behave accordingly? I hope so. Because the truth will out. And it would be really good for the country if that most fundamental reality of all did not so overwhelmingly favor today's patently cruel and often incompetent Republican Party. Elizabeth Grace Matthew is based in Philadelphia. She writes about books, education, and culture, including on Substack.
