Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed one of the most enduring principles of our constitutional order: Power must be divided to preserve liberty.
In our recent case V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, the justices confronted a question that goes back to the founding: Who decides? The Constitution assigns the power to tax and impose tariffs to Congress. The executive’s role is to enforce the law, not rewrite it. Whatever one’s views on trade policy, the court’s message was clear: Structure matters. When power concentrates in one branch, liberty is at risk.
That principle is not partisan. It is foundational.
As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 51, “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” The framers divided authority not because they distrusted one leader or party but because they understood human nature. Checks and balances protect us all — especially when we disagree with the person in power.
That is why the court’s decision resonates beyond Washington.
It invites us, here in Chicago, to take a fresh look at our own structure of government.
Chicago operates under one of the strongest mayoral systems in the country. The mayor not only heads the executive branch but also presides over City Council meetings. The mayor exercises veto authority and plays a central role in committee assignments and the flow of legislation. None of this is unlawful. It is authorized under Illinois law and has been part of our civic architecture for generations.
But it is worth asking whether this structure reflects the same separation-of-powers principles we defend at the national level.
In many major American cities, the legislative body selects its own presiding officer. In New York City, the City Council elects a speaker who sets the agenda. In Los Angeles, the council chooses its own president. In Houston, while the mayor is powerful, the legislative branch maintains clearer procedural independence. These cities are not perfect. But structurally, their legislative branches operate with greater autonomy.
Chicago’s model is different. Difference alone is not a defect. The question is whether our balance best serves a modern city of nearly 3 million residents — a city that prides itself on resilience and civic engagement.
Separation of powers is not an abstract doctrine reserved for law school casebooks. It shapes incentives. It encourages deliberation. It slows impulsive decision-making. It builds public confidence that policies are adopted through a process that does not depend on the will of a single officeholder.
Importantly, this conversation is not about any current mayor. Every mayor inherits the same structure. Constitutional design is not about personalities. It is about guardrails.
When the executive presides over the legislative branch and retains veto authority, meaningful institutional counterweights can become harder to sustain. Even when exercised responsibly, concentrated procedural authority can diminish the perception — and sometimes the reality — of independent legislative deliberation.
Chicago deserves a civic structure that reflects both our history and our aspirations.
Kam Buckner: A city charter is the reform Chicago actually needs, not recall powers
One path forward would be serious discussion of a modern city charter that more clearly delineates executive and legislative roles. Such a charter could preserve a strong mayor while ensuring that the City Council selects its own presiding officer and exercises greater procedural independence. It would not weaken leadership; it would strengthen legitimacy.
Other American cities have updated their governance frameworks over time. There is no reason Chicago cannot do the same. Reform need not be radical. It can be thoughtful, incremental and rooted in civic pride.
The genius of the American system is that it anticipates disagreement. It assumes power, left unchecked, tends to expand. And it builds in friction not to frustrate democracy but to protect it.
If we celebrate separation of powers when the Supreme Court applies it in Washington, we should examine how it operates closer to home. Constitutional principles do not stop at the Chicago city limits.
I love this city — its neighborhoods, its grit, its entrepreneurs and public servants. Chicago has always reinvented itself when necessary, from rebuilding after the Great Fire to reshaping its skyline.
Taking a fresh look at our municipal structure is not a critique of who we are. It is an affirmation of who we aspire to be: a city governed not merely by tradition but by enduring principles.
Separation of powers has safeguarded our nation for nearly 250 years. It is worth asking whether those same guardrails should more clearly shape the future of Chicago.
Sara Albrecht is a Chicago resident and chairman of the Liberty Justice Center, a nonprofit, nonpartisan public-interest law firm. She recently prevailed before the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, invalidating the so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs as unconstitutional.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
