Chicago City Council voted to delay the controversial snap curfew ordinance, which would allow the Chicago Police Department to enact a curfew with a 30-minute warning, anytime, anywhere when a group of 20 or more are gathered. The vote has been pushed to the next Council meeting in June.

After multiple safety committee hearings, the legislation — spearheaded by sponsor Ald. Brian Hopkins (2nd) — went to a full council vote on Wednesday, May 21.

Deferred right before Memorial Day weekend, the symbolic start to summer, the ordinance is a response to the rising “teen trends” in Chicago’s downtown neighborhoods. Often organized on social media, these gatherings bring teens to the city’s beaches, parks and other public spaces as the weather warms. Some of these trends have resulted in injuries, with both residents and alderpeople expressing concern.

“We’ve already had two violent takeovers in Streeterville that gunfire broke out in both and people were struck by bullets. When is the third going to happen? “ Hopkins said after the vote. “All they did was delay the inevitable and deny the Chicago Police a tool that they could potentially use to stop a violent teen takeover from happening.”

The ordinance has sparked debate not only over safety concerns throughout the city but also broader civil liberties. Organizations such as the National Lawyers Guild and the ACLU have openly disapproved of the snap curfew proposal, expressing that the power that would be given to law enforcement is unconstitutional on many levels.

Hopkins confirmed that he did not meet with lawyers from the ACLU, but “an attorney who has 30 years of litigation experience in constitutional law.” Hopkins denies claims that the ordinance breaches constitutional rights.

Mayor Brandon Johnson has been in vocal opposition to the curfew ordinance, citing the lack of evidence in a curfew’s effectiveness in reducing violence. Johnson said he has continued to collaborate across the city on the curfew ordinance.

“I’ve spent a day in (Hopkin’s) wards, meeting with different residents of the respective communities in his ward,” Johnson said. “There’s clearly an approach that I’m taking where I’m bringing all stakeholders together to continue to make sure that we drive violence down in the city of Chicago.”

Johnson reiterated that it’s “not just policing” that reduces crime but police in collaboration with other services such as youth involvement, employment and mental health services.

The ordinance states that minors who knowingly stay in a place where a curfew has been enforced are committing an offense. Police are tasked with asking the violator’s age and reason for being in the public place. A minor will commit an offense if they knowingly remain in any public place in violation of a declared curfew.

A “mass gathering,” as defined by the ordinance, means 20 or more people gathered in a public space in a manner that is likely to cause harm to the community or property.

There are various exceptions — such as a minor accompanied by their parent or guardian, a minor involved in an emergency, attending an official school or other recreational activity; like a ticketed or sponsored event. The ordinance also has an exception for an exercise of First Amendment rights.

Penalties for a curfew violation include a fine no more than $250, community service or both.

The most recent proposal gives Superintendent Larry Snelling complete authority to enact the curfew. Previous drafts of the ordinances included a joint power between the Superintendent of Police and Deputy Mayor of Community Safety to make this decision — an unpopular proposal on part of the ordinance’s supporters.

The ordinance now leaves Snelling in charge, only requiring the deputy mayor to be “consulted” about a curfew’s implementation. For critics of the ordinance, this would leave too much power to an individual.

“When you’re doing these snap curfews that apparently one person can decide…. I just think that puts too much power in any one person’s hands,” Ald. Andre Vasquez (40th) said in an interview before the vote.

Vasquez said that he’s “not voting for that thing no matter what,” while acknowledging what he characterized as Hopkins’ “good faith” in its introduction, despite the two not agreeing on the subject matter.

Johnson reinforced this stance–citing his own constitutional concerns about the ordinance, saying that the ordinance gives “unilateral authority to one entity,” which he does not see as “an effective democratic tool.”

As debates surrounding the proposed curfew legislation continue to June, a glaring contrast remains for Vasquez.

“I don’t believe (Chairman Hopkins and others) have had the experience that a number of us folks of color and other identities have had with police,” Vasquez said. “So they don’t have an appreciation for the concern we all have about giving someone those kind of tools to arbitrarily make that kind of decision.”