Chicago’s police superintendent is once again on the cusp of gaining new teen curfew powers after aldermen advanced an ordinance Wednesday aimed at controlling large youth gatherings.
The measure would give Superintendent Larry Snelling and his successors the power to declare a teen curfew anytime, anywhere across the city with at least 12 hours notice. Aldermen supported the ordinance in a 10-4 vote in the Public Safety Committee, teeing it up for a final full City Council vote later this month.
But its fate is far from certain.
The council in June passed a nearly identical ordinance, 27-22. However, the measure — then featuring just a 30-minute minimum notice — never became law. Mayor Brandon Johnson blocked it with a rare mayoral veto, decrying it as “lazy governance” and unnecessary.
But Ald. Brian Hopkins, 2nd, took up his curfew push again after a large November teen gathering ended in tragedy.
Following the downtown Christmas tree-lighting ceremony, a 14-year-old boy was shot and killed and eight others were shot amid a sprawling social media-fueled meetup.
Johnson said Wednesday he remains opposed to one person having “unilateral control” over such a curfew, an apparent reference to the final say the ordinance would give the police superintendent. But he declined to say whether he would again issue a veto if the measure passed.
On the council floor at around the same time, Hopkins argued the ordinance does not give the superintendent unilateral control, because it requires the superintendent to consult with public safety leaders in the mayor’s administration.
The downtown alderman praised Johnson’s decision to publicly state that police would enforce the city’s preexisting 10 p.m. teen curfew on New Year’s Eve ahead of the holiday. The move appeared to effectively quash online efforts to spark such a meetup that night, Hopkins said.
But Johnson said his pre-New Year’s remarks were only an effort to highlight the current rule.
“I’ve never been opposed to that,” he said. “What I simply said was that for New Year’s Eve, the curfew that’s already in place, as we always have, we will make sure that that curfew is implemented.”
Hopkins told reporters he has gained more support for his tweaked curfew ordinance since the last one was vetoed, noting the backing of Johnson ally Ald. William Hall, 6th. He also claimed Snelling has told him that he supports the council’s effort to pass such a curfew law.
“I know he hasn’t said as much publicly because of the controversy surrounding it,” Hopkins said. “I believe we’re going forward with the full support of the superintendent.”
Snelling, always careful to avoid taking political stances, has so far not publicly said whether he supports such an ordinance. The police leader doubled down on the decision to not take a side Wednesday in a statement shared by the department.
“The Chicago Police Department enforces all laws,” the statement attributed to the department said. “Draft ordinances are out of the control of CPD, and we have no comment on any proposed ordinances.”
The City Hall teen curfew debate has now lasted for nearly a year, first sparked in 2025 by two high-profile Streeterville gatherings, both of which ended in shootings.
Another measure debated Wednesday sought to take aim at those so-called teen takeovers or “teen trend” events with a different angle: by fining social media companies $50,000 if they do not take down posts advertising such gatherings when asked to by the city.
The proposed ordinance, sponsored by Hall, did not advance through the committee Wednesday, but could see further debate. After hearing pushback from colleagues who questioned the proposal’s legal footing and argued responsibility should instead be placed on the people who post invitations, Hall criticized the “coldhearted” members of the council.
The ordinance simply pushes social media companies to enforce anti-violence rules that are already a part of their guidelines, Hall argued.
“We want corporate responsible partners, not predatory partners,” he said. “I’ll be damned if we lose another kid because they saw something on the internet that said ‘come do something illegal.’”
