[Chicago City Council] Legislative Brief - 016732 - Youth Curfews
Context
On April 16, 2025, an ordinance, submitted by Alderman Hopkins was introduced and referred to the Committee on Public Safety. This ordinance was purported to be introduced to pre-empt “teen takeovers” from having detrimental effects on community. Below we offer a research-based analysis on the concept of earlier curfews and the lack of evidence around their effectiveness as a tool for curbing youth violence.
It is important to note that this briefing does not address potential issues of constitutionality that should be investigated within this ordinance, as well as a clear groundwork for an over-reach of powers for individuals within the Chicago Police Department. A legal analysis should be provided to any legislators that are considering supporting this piece of legislation, given the tax liability this creates for an inevitable constitutional legal battle that will ensue if this legislation was to pass.
What does this policy allow ?
Defines “Mass gatherings” as 20 or more people gathered in a public place in a manner to present, cause, or is likely to result in substantial harm to the safety of the community or others. It includes the potential for risk of substantial damage to property, injuries, or substantial harm to public health, safety or welfare.
Researchers Note: This definition of mass gathering is overbroad giving no indication on how it is determined that something would ‘likely present or cause’ substantial harm to public health, safety, or welfare - giving the Superintendent (and Deputy Mayor) wide powers of definition.
Researchers Note: There is no identification that this is specifically for youth. There is no clarity on if this could include the mass gathering of adults.
The Superintendent is able to issue a curfew at any time within any district if he has probable cause that a mass gathering will occur, and requires joint determination with the Deputy Mayor. That curfew will not exceed 3 hours unless there is a joint determination by the Superintendent and the Deputy Mayor that it needs to be extended.
Researchers Note: These are both snap and roaming curfews, which give very expansive powers to the Superintendent, jointly with the Deputy Mayor.
Researchers Note: There is no definition for what “likely to present or cause” entails, and is a very broad power for any introduced policy.
Researchers Note: This offers very broad powers for unelected individuals, with a single check, balance, or approval, to issue a curfew.
Evidence of probable cause is said to be “objective facts” and that data could include: social media posts, written materials such as flyers, or historical promoting of mass gatherings.
Researchers Note: It is difficult to interpret or understand what this ordinance means by “historical promoting of mass gatherings.” The remaining reasons lack clarity and specificity on what qualifies as “objective fact” within “social media posts and written materials such as flyers”.
Upon declaration of the curfew, the Superintendent will notify the public through posting publicly within the space, notify sister agencies, as well as the District or Incident Commander.
Researchers Note: There is no minimum time-frame offered for how much notice is required for public notification of the curfew, nor is there any clarity on the method of notification to the public aside from public postings within the space.
Within the definition of offenses, it outlines that any minor, after having been provided notice, that remains in any public place in violation of the curfew, or anyone that assists them, including the parent or guardian.
Researchers Note: There is no definition of what qualifies as that individual having ‘been provided notice’. There is, once again, a lack of definition of how these public places are defined. I.e., if the “teen takeover” is occurring at The Bean - is the curfew for the Bean, for the broader park, for all of downtown? There is a worry that the lack of definitions for this broadens the power materially.
There is a “rule” written within this policy that directs the Superintendent to write directives to prevent enforcement of curfews for persons to engage in collective advocacy activities that are protected by the Constitution of the United States or the State of Illinois.
Researchers Note: There is a lack of definition on the enforcement of these written directives.
Within the Defenses portion of this policy, it lists a variety of reasons when someone would not be in violation of the curfew.
Researchers Note: There is a large swath of reasons that are not covered, that relate to the use of public transportation that moves through the curfew space. Based on the language as it currently stands, if an individual is on public transportation and moves through the curfew area, they could be in violation of the curfew.
Minors that violate this curfew, as well as anyone that incites or assists a minor will be subject to a fine less than or equal to $250 or community service, or both.
This requires a quarterly report that details all curfews from the previous quarter, to be shared with the Committee on Public Safety.
If there is a minor that is found in violation of the curfew, the officer is authorized to bring that minor into custody until there is an adult to pick them up. If there is no one to pick them up within a “reasonable period of time”, the minor shall be referred to the appropriate juvenile authorities.
Legislation Analysis Overview
Though we recognize that the intent behind this legislation is likely to improve public safety, peer-reviewed research shows that it is not an effective tool, creates systems for both over-reach for a police department that is already under consent decree, and will have hugely disproportionate effects on Black and Brown young people within this city.
Youth-based curfews in the City of Chicago have been found to be racist in both execution as well as impact. Upon reviewing the measures that it recommends to impose, it creates a clear pathway for a race-biased impact on young Black and Brown Chicagoans.
Furthermore, the premise behind the need for the ordinance is flawed. Young people gathering together in a public place is not against the law. If a group of three or more people gather “for the purpose of using force or violence to disturb the public peace,” the police can already issue an order to disperse and arrest people who fail to disperse. So if violence erupts or seems likely to erupt, there is already a law in place to address it.
This approach is similar to a gang loitering ordinance that was in effect in Chicago in the late 1990’s. Under the ordinance, if police officers found a person whom they “reasonably believed” to be a gang member loitering (defined as “remaining in any one place with no apparent purpose”) with one or more persons, they could order them to disperse and arrest them if they did not. Similar to the proposed curfew law, it tried to anticipate illegal activity rather than observe any actual sign of it. Ultimately the law was declared unconstitutional because it was too vague and gave too much discretion to law officers.
To view and download the full report, please click here.
