As the Donald J. Trump administration continues its onslaught of federal immigration occupations actions across Minneapolis, Memphis, Los Angeles, Chicago and elsewhere in the U.S., Ald. Rossana Rodriguez Sánchez (33rd Ward) disagrees with giving Chicago police more power to potentially arrest youth through a stricter curfew policy.
“At this moment, where fascism is looking at us in the eyes, we should not be trying to police people more. We should not be trying to be giving police more tools and more strategies to be able to incarcerate people because what we’re seeing right now is obscene,” she told The TRiiBE. “It’s immoral, and we should be moving in the direction of care.”
Ald. Brian Hopkins (2nd Ward), the lead sponsor, tabled Wednesday’s vote on his latest curfew proposal, which includes tweaks that ban “snap curfews” and give police the power to declare a temporary curfew anywhere in the city with 12 hours’ notice.
Hopkins introduced tweaks to the proposal through a substitute ordinance at the council meeting, prompting confusion from alders because the changes were shared mere minutes before the anticipated vote.
Nonetheless, Rodriguez Sánchez said she’s voting “no” on Hopkins’ ordinance whenever it comes up again for a vote. Instead, she said, the city should be “moving in the direction of funding the things that are going to promote humanity and compassion.”
“We should be doubling down on how do we make sure that every young person in Chicago has the opportunity to have a job, has the opportunity to do something meaningful that they enjoy, have the opportunity to develop their skills to the best of their abilities and their gifts, so that’s where I’m at with it.”
Rodriguez Sánchez and other alderpeople acknowledged Hopkins’ effort to minimize harm to young people, civil rights attorneys and organizers who were outraged by his initial “snap curfew” proposal. Cutting the “snap curfew” and “time and place” provisions were somewhat of a compromise between his desires and Mayor Brandon Johnson’s administration.
Without those triggers, however, many questioned the purpose and legality of this revised proposal.
Ald. Maria Hadden (49th Ward) voiced opposition to the “snap curfew” ordinance last spring. On Wednesday, she told The TRiiBE she likes that Hopkins eliminated the “snap curfew” portion in his new proposal.
“I do like that this ordinance clarifies that we will not use a ‘snap curfew’ piece because that was a really big concern of mine, like, overreaching of how we’re going to enforce that,” Hadden continued. “I feel like that ‘snap curfew’ ran the risk of criminalizing people, especially young people, and especially unintended targets.”
If it had come up for a vote Wednesday, Hadden said she would have likely voted in favor of it. She also appreciated Hopkins’ collaboration with Alds. Pat Dowell (3rd Ward), Jason Ervin (28th Ward) and others to come to a compromise.
The thing is, the Chicago police already have the authority to disperse crowds. In Hopkins’ latest proposal, it lays out how the Chicago police superintendent would employ a “dispersal declaration” to control what’s deemed a “disruptive youth gathering.” If this update is approved by alders in the future, it would be included as a section in the city’s already existing youth curfew policy.
Hopkins’ latest update specifically targets “disruptive youth gatherings” that are defined as three or more minors “who commit or are likely to commit acts of disorderly conduct,” or that are likely to cause “substantial harm to the safety of community, others, property damage or injury,” according to the legislation text.
Hopkins, while explaining the revisions to his colleagues on Wednesday, said his tweaks address a weakness with his previous version of the proposal which passed out of the City Council’s Public Safety Committee earlier this month.
He scrapped that proposal on Wednesday after conversations with members of Mayor Brandon Johnson’s team. However, Johnson didn’t outright endorse Hopkins tweaks on Wednesday.
“Our number one priority is to keep people safe, right? But we also wanted to ensure that whatever policy we put in place, that it had obviously a constitutional framework that would not subject us to litigation and ultimate harm for people,” Johnson told reporters after Wednesday’s council meeting.
In response to a question from The TRiiBE about concerns from Black and brown youth who organized against changes to the city’s curfew, Johnson maintained his opposition to a “snap curfew.”
“Well, conversations are still ongoing, and I just want to make something absolutely clear: what we opposed, rightfully so, was a ‘snap curfew.’ This is not a snap curfew,” Johnson said about Hopkins’ latest curfew proposal. “We already have a curfew in place.”
Johnson vetoed Hopkins’ “snap curfew” ordinance last summer. A source close to the Johnson administration said civil rights attorneys and Chicago youth organizations were consulted on the updated ordinance that was presented at Wednesday’s meeting.
“This notion that you could just snap your finger and enact a curfew? Of course, I oppose that,” Johnson said. “I continue to oppose that. This measure, of course, is providing a lot more consideration around the protection of our young people, both their constitutional rights, but their safety as well.”
What Hopkins introduced on Wednesday, he said, gives police officers more flexibility.
“If they’re aware of the teen trend, they can use existing authority to break up an illegal gathering, to break up a gathering that’s chaotic or committing crimes, a large group of people taking over the streets,” Hopkins said. “We don’t need a new law to give them authority to enforce that dispersal ordinance they already have.”
Hopkins argued this tool will help prevent another child from being shot, injured or killed. In late November 2025, after the city’s Christmas tree lighting ceremony, nine teens were shot and injured, and one teen, Armani Floyd, 14, died.
The new proposed ordinance states that the dispersal declaration must:
- Advise the general public that the Police Department has probable cause to believe that a potential disruptive youth gathering will occur at a clearly identified public place during a specific time period.
- The declaration has to indicate that any minor who participates in the disruptive youth gathering is subject to dispersal and that any minor who fails to follow the dispersal order is subject to arrest.
- At least 10 minutes before a dispersal order is implemented, a police officer must give a verbal warning to the public.
Notification of any dispersal order would be shared in public places, on social media, with the Chicago Public Schools, other city sister agencies and aldermanic ward officers within the site of the dispersal order.
Minors would be brought to a police station and released to a parent or guardian. There would be no mug shot or fingerprints, or booking happening, Hopkins said.
“It avoids the constitutional question, and it gives the Chicago police maximum flexibility to respond to events as they occur and to not be locked in to enforcing dispersal orders at only a specific time and only a specific place,” he said.
The last minute timing of Hopkins’ revisions didn’t sit well with some alders. Ald. Matt O’Shea (19th Ward) was one of a few alders who voiced their frustrations. He said the latest change would open up the city to civil rights lawsuits.
“We’re taking children and we’re putting them in a police station,” O’Shea said. “What about the lawsuits that we continue to have meetings on and the millions of dollars of settlements? What happens when something goes sideways downtown and we apprehend a group of teenagers down there looking to create conflict, but they’re held against their will for a parent that doesn’t show up for 12 hours or 18 hours? Because that’s what’s happening.”
It is unclear at the moment if Hopkins’ revised substitute ordinance will come up for a vote at next month’s City Council meeting.
