There, Ald. Daniel La Spata, 1st, raced over to Ald. David Moore, 17th, to ask Moore why he had blocked two seemingly uncontroversial proposals of La Spata’s aimed at adding housing in Logan Square.

The answer, Moore shouted in anger and frustration as he stood beside a sun-filled window, was retaliation.

“If you hit me, I’m gonna knock your ass out,” he grumbled as he got closer to La Spata. “If you can’t dish it, don’t give it out.”

TV cameras set up for a nearby interview panned over as the shouting grew louder. Another council member and security guards quickly stepped in to separate the aldermen, ending the tense interaction.

But the effects of the dispute will linger: Now, a $10 million bond to fund a low-income housing development and a much-needed zoning change clearing the way for a storage building to be turned into a 62-loft apartment are delayed for at least a month.

Moore used the “defer and publish” parliamentary maneuver when the items came up for consideration. Ald. Raymond Lopez, 15th, also backed it. The tactic prevents scheduled votes and is often used by aldermen to delay ordinances they oppose.

Nonetheless, La Spata sat in disbelief after the legislation was blocked. City Council colleagues typically do not touch the day-to-day development ordinances involving another alderman’s ward, a tradition known as “aldermanic prerogative.”

But Moore left no doubt about why he stalled La Spata’s proposals. He blocked them because La Spata had “deferred and published” an ordinance of Moore’s own, he said.

La Spata used the tactic in April to prevent a vote on an ordinance sponsored by Moore that sought to give City Council control over the ShotSpotter gunshot detection system’s future. After the delay, the ordinance finally passed with broad council support in May, despite opposition from Mayor Brandon Johnson.

“This was clearly payback,” Moore told the Tribune. “My thing is: Leave David Moore alone,”

“If you slap me, I’m going to hit you with a bat. If you hit me with a bat, I’m going to shoot you with a gun,” he continued.

Moore said he found La Spata’s complaints after the council meeting “mean-spirited” and took them as political threats. La Spata said he had invited Moore to view the housing developments, an invitation Moore has no plans to accept. Moore only meant to send a message, he explained.

“I don’t have a problem with his developments,” Moore said. “You don’t need to invite me anywhere.”

Moore had made public comments suggesting he would clap back against anyone who stalled the ShotSpotter ordinance as it worked through the City Council. His retaliatory stall tactics Wednesday are not his first.

In 2021, Moore sponsored the ordinance to rename Lake Shore Drive after Jean Baptiste Point du Sable. When the ordinance was similarly stalled, Moore responded by blocking the City Council’s entire agenda.

Moments after Moore yelled at him, La Spata called the retaliation “inappropriate.”

“I think we are called to be better than that, to be bigger than that,” he said. “I try to raise my daughter so that we use words rather than fists. That is what I expect of any adult.”

The two ordinances to build more housing are “critical,” he said. The old Hollander Storage & Moving building in Logan Square is being held up by metal plates now and urgently needs redevelopment to start, he said.

“If that facade were to crumble or be damaged in the next month, I know the individuals who I would hold responsible,” La Spata said. “There’s such a desperate need for affordable housing. There’s such a desperate need to move these two buildings forward.”

jsheridan@chicagotribune.com

The lawsuit — filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and others on behalf of Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and RAICES — is the first test of the legality of Biden’s sweeping crackdown on the border, which came after months of internal White House deliberations and is designed in part to deflect political attacks against the president on his handling of immigration.

“By enacting an asylum ban that is legally indistinguishable from the Trump ban we successfully blocked, we were left with no choice but to file this lawsuit,” said Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the ACLU.

The order Biden issued last week would limit asylum processing once encounters with migrants between ports of entry reach 2,500 per day. It went into effect immediately because the latest figures were far higher, at about 4,000 daily.

The restrictions would be in effect until two weeks after the daily encounter numbers are at or below 1,500 per day between ports of entry, under a seven-day average. But it’s far from clear when the numbers would dip that low; the last time was in July 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The order went into effect June 5, and Biden administration officials have said they expected record levels of deportations.

But advocates argue that suspending asylum for migrants who don’t arrive at a designated port of entry — which the Biden administration is trying to push migrants to do —- violates existing federal immigration law, among other concerns.

Biden invoked the same legal authority used by the Trump administration for its asylum ban, which comes under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. That provision allows a president to limit entries for certain migrants if their entry is deemed “detrimental” to the national interest.

Biden has repeatedly criticized Trump’s immigration policies as he campaigns, and his administration argues that his directive is different because it includes several exemptions for humanitarian reasons. For example, victims of human trafficking, unaccompanied minors and those with severe medical emergencies would not be subject to the limits.

“We stand by the legality of what we have done,” Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said on ABC’s “This Week” before the lawsuit was filed, saying he anticipated legal challenges. “We stand by the value proposition.”

Under Biden’s directive, migrants who arrive at the border but do not express a fear of returning to their home countries will be subject to immediate removal from the United States, within a matter of days or even hours. Those migrants could face punishments that could include a five-year bar from reentering the U.S. or even criminal prosecution.

Meanwhile, those who express fear or an intention to seek asylum will be screened by a U.S. asylum officer but at a higher standard than currently used. If they pass the screening, they can pursue more limited forms of humanitarian protection, including the U.N. Convention Against Torture, which prohibits returning people to a country where they’re likely to face torture.

The 216-207 vote fell along party lines, with Republicans coalescing behind the contempt effort despite reservations among some of the party’s more centrist members.

“We have to defend the Constitution. We have to defend the authority of Congress,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said at a press conference ahead of the vote. “We can’t allow the Department of Justice and Executive Branch to hide information from Congress.”

Garland is now the third attorney general to be held in contempt of Congress. Yet it is unlikely that the Justice Department — which Garland oversees — will prosecute him. The White House’s decision to exert executive privilege over the audio recording, shielding it from Congress, would make it exceedingly difficult to make a criminal case against Garland.

The White House and congressional Democrats have slammed Republicans’ motives for pursuing contempt and dismissed their efforts to obtain the audio as purely political. They also pointed out that Rep. Jim Jordan, the GOP chair of the House Judiciary Committee, defied his own congressional subpoena last session.

“This contempt resolution will do very little, other than smear the reputation of Merrick Garland, who will remain a good and decent public servant no matter what Republicans say about him today,” New York Rep. Jerry Nadler, the top Democrat on Judiciary Committee, said during floor debate.

Garland has defended the Justice Department, saying officials have gone to extraordinary lengths to provide information to the committees about Special Counsel Robert Hur’s classified documents investigation, including a transcript of Biden’s interview with him.

“There have been a series of unprecedented and frankly unfounded attacks on the Justice Department,” Garland said in a press conference last month. “This request, this effort to use contempt as a method of obtaining our sensitive law enforcement files is just most recent.”

Republicans were incensed when Hur declined to prosecuteBiden over his handling of classified documents and quickly opened an investigation. GOP lawmakers — led by Jordan and Rep. James Comer — sent a subpoena for audio of Hur’s interviews with Biden during the spring. But the Justice Department only turned over some of the records, leaving out audio of the interview with the president.

On the last day to comply with the Republicans’ subpoena for the audio, the White House blocked the release by invoking executive privilege. It said that Republicans in Congress only wanted the recordings “to chop them up” and use them for political purposes.

Executive privilege gives presidents the right to keep information from the courts, Congress and the public to protect the confidentiality of decision-making, though it can be challenged in court.

Administrations of both political parties have long held the position that officials who assert a president’s claim of executive privilege can’t be prosecuted for contempt of Congress, a Justice Department official told Republicans last month.

Assistant Attorney General Carlos Felipe Uriarte cited a committee’s decision in 2008 to back down from a contempt effort after President George W. Bush asserted executive privilege to keep Congress from getting records involving Vice President Dick Cheney.

Before Garland, the last attorney general held in contempt was Bill Barr in 2019. That was when the Democratically controlled House voted to issue a referral against Barr after he refused to turn over documents related to a special counsel investigation into Trump.

Years before that, then-Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt related to the gun-running operation known as Operation Fast and Furious. In each of those instances, the Justice Department took no action against the attorney general.

The special counsel in Biden’s case, Hur, spent a year investigating the president’s improper retention of classified documents, from his time as a senator and as vice president. The result was a 345-page report that questioned Biden’s age and mental competence but recommended no criminal charges for the 81-year-old. Hur said he found insufficient evidence to successfully prosecute a case in court.

In March, Hur stood by his no-prosecution assessment in testimony before the Judiciary Committee, where he was grilled for more than four hours by both Democratic and Republican lawmakers.

His defense did not satisfy Republicans, who insist that there is a politically motivated double standard at the Justice Department, which is prosecuting former President Donald Trump over his retention of classified documents at his Florida club after he left the White House.

But there are major differences between the two probes. Biden’s team returned the documents after they were discovered, and the president cooperated with the investigation by voluntarily sitting for an interview and consenting to searches of his homes.

Trump, by contrast, is accused of enlisting the help of aides and lawyers to conceal the documents from the government and of seeking to have potentially incriminating evidence destroyed.

Associated Press writers Kevin Freking and Alanna Durkin Richer contributed to this report.

Ahead of an expected final vote, two aldermen used a parliamentary tactic to stall the ordinance to fine or suspend lobbyists who make contributions to a mayoral candidate’s political fund. The aldermen later denied to reporters that the Johnson administration officials urged them to oppose it, but the maneuver nonetheless bought the mayor time to halt or amend the effort led by Ald. Matt Martin.

Martin said he was disappointed in the delay and intends to bring the ordinance back to the council in July.

Johnson was not enthusiastic about that timeline. In a post-council news conference, he said he wants to wait for a “full comprehensive ethics package” rather than move quickly on one that only addresses lobbyist contributions to mayoral candidates.

The legislation was crafted in response to how Johnson handled lobbyist donations his political committee received. It is part of a larger push by Martin, 47th, a progressive who is Johnson’s handpicked Ethics Committee chair, to ramp up momentum for what he says are much-needed good government reforms that the mayor has left to the wayside.

He expects to keep the proposal focused on mayors but is open to similar legislation in the future including aldermen, he said. The goal, he added, is to stop ethics “backsliding.”

“We just want to maintain the status quo,” Martin said. “What we’re working to do here is very narrow in response to the Board of Ethics’ recommendations.”

Mayor Rahm Emanuel first codified the rule in a 2011 executive order, but the city’s ethics board determined in April it does not have the authority to enforce it after running into legal problems that forced it to drop several cases involving registered lobbyists improperly donating to Johnson’s political committee.

In his news conference Wednesday, Johnson dodged questions about what specifically he wants to see changed in Martin’s ordinance, including amendments that would add aldermen and other elected officials to the restrictions. He did repeatedly endorse the idea of enacting public campaign financing in Chicago, and denied his administration is slow-walking ethics reform.

The council’s Ethics Committee passed the measure last Thursday despite resistance from Johnson’s administration, which said it unfairly targets one person and should instead apply to all elected officials. Ald. Chris Taliaferro, 29th, and Ald. Nick Sposato, 38th, used the “defer and publish” maneuver Wednesday to forestall what would have been the final floor vote.

Addressing reporters afterward, Taliaferro said Johnson was not behind his move to block Martin’s legislation and instead said he had questions about how it would impact lobbyist donations to other city officials such as aldermen.

The ordinance only addresses mayors and mayoral candidates. However, Taliaferro would not say whether he is for or against a hypothetical expansion.

He noted City Council members who aren’t backed by unions would struggle without lobbyist contributions, while also asserting “When you’re looking at government reform, it should apply across the board because we’re no different than the mayor.”

“No, I’m not saying I’m a proponent for that,” Taliaferro said about expanding the restrictions. “I don’t know yet. And I can tell you that the reason I don’t know is because I haven’t heard an in-depth explanation of what happens if it does apply to me.”

Meanwhile, Sposato told reporters he doesn’t think it’s fair to single out the mayor or mayoral candidates, but he does not want the restrictions to apply to aldermen, either.

“This is a very accusatory ordinance, like he’s doing the wrong thing and he’s being so evil and bad,” said Sposato, a frequent Johnson critic. “But if it happens for the mayor, it should be the same for us.”

Other aldermen and good government advocates have admonished Johnson’s team for not supporting the plan and said sitting on it would move ethics reform at City Hall backward.

Johnson’s spokesperson previously denied the mayor opposed tightening rules on lobbyist contributions, instead saying Martin and others were unwilling to expand the ordinance to include aldermen and other elected officials. Martin then told the Tribune “that’s not accurate,” adding that Johnson’s administration did not send any concrete suggestions on revising the ordinance.

Under the proposal the committee passed, a lobbyist would be fined three times the amount of the contribution unless it is returned within 10 days, and the second violation could net a 90-day suspension for the lobbyist.

And unlike the Emanuel order, the ban would extend to not just sitting mayors but all mayoral candidates. In addition, the prohibition would apply to any business that hired a lobbyist in the year preceding the contribution or any entity in which the lobbyist has over 7.5% ownership.

Also Wednesday, the council approved a $50 million settlement for four men imprisoned after detectives allegedly forced their false confessions to a double murder as teens. The men were convicted and spent a combined 73 years behind bars but were exonerated after new fingerprinting technology did not connect them to the crime scene.

The costly deal is the largest settlement for alleged police misconduct in Chicago’s history — a record set just three months ago. Aldermen have approved about $300 million to settle Chicago police-related lawsuits since the start of 2021.

“No compensation can give back to these men what was taken from them, but the city’s willingness to settle this matter restores some measure of faith in the system and the belief that justice can be achieved through perseverance and unwavering commitment,” Michael Oppenheimer, an attorney representing Troshawn McCoy, one of the four men, said in a statement Wednesday after the vote.

Later, Ald. Brian Hopkins, 2nd, introduced an ordinance to set an 8 p.m. curfew for unaccompanied minors in downtown Chicago. But the curfew attempt was sent to the council’s Rules Committee by Ald. Andre Vasquez, 40th — a stall tactic that will likely block any curfew from being implemented this summer.

Chicago already has a long-running 10 p.m. citywide curfew for unaccompanied minors. Hopkins’ proposal comes a week after a couple was attacked in an “unprovoked and aggravated assault” that led to the arrest of two teens.

Aldermen also passed an ordinance aimed at quieting anti-abortion protests outside a Chicago women’s health clinic. The ordinance, sponsored by Ald. Bill Conway, 34th, had been stalled by opponents last month. Sposato again argued Wednesday the ordinance would infringe upon First Amendment rights of anti-abortion Christian protesters.

“You all have really blown this out of proportion,” Sposato said. “You act like there’s a bunch of biker thugs out there looking to beat the crap out of somebody, and that’s not what’s going on. There’s a bunch of women and children out there, mostly praying, a lot of Catholics.”

But backed by a flood of supportive statements from fellow aldermen before the 41-4 vote, Conway defended the ordinance as a way to respect protesters’ rights, but take away their amplifiers to protect patients.

“We are on firm legal footing here,” he said.

The restrictions outside the West Loop’s Family Planning Associates clinic will ban noise-making devices from directly outside the clinic as soon as signs are placed.

jsheridan@chicagotribune.com

ayin@chicagotribune.com

Less than five months before Election Day, the poll paints a picture of a nation with firmly entrenched opinions of the divisive former Republican president. Overall views of Trump and Democratic President Joe Biden remain unchanged since before the guilty verdict in Trump’s New York hush money trial.

But the findings also suggest that Trump’s conviction is one more weakness among disaffected Republicans. While most people in the United States have heard about the conviction, political independents are less likely to be paying attention and more likely to have a neutral opinion of Trump’s conviction, indicating that there may still be room for the campaigns to sway them.

Nancy Hauser, a 74-year-old independent from West Palm Beach, Florida, said she approves of Trump’s conviction based on the little she followed of the trial. The verdict, she said, suggests that Trump may be willing to engage in criminal activity if he were back in the White House.

“I feel if you’ve been convicted of a crime, especially a felony, a serious crime, how can you run a country?” she said.

But she also has concerns about Biden, especially his age and leadership on the economy and the war in Israel. Biden is 81, while Trump turns 78 on Friday.

“I’m not sure who I’m voting for,” Hauser said. “That’s the sad part.”

Overall, U.S. adults are more likely to approve of Trump’s conviction than they are to disapprove, according to a survey of 1,115 adults nationwide conducted over three days beginning a week after the verdict was delivered May 30, and before Biden’s son Hunter was convicted in a federal gun case on Tuesday.

About 3 in 10 somewhat or strongly disapprove of Trump’s conviction, and about 2 in 10 do not approve or disapprove. Perspectives were similar among registered voters, with about half saying the conviction was the right choice.

Republicans are less united on the verdict than are Democrats. Roughly 6 in 10 Republicans somewhat or strongly disapprove of the conviction, while 15% of Republican adults approve and about 2 in 10 Republicans neither approve nor disapprove. Among Democrats, by contrast, more than 8 in 10 somewhat or strongly approve.

About half of Americans say that the conviction was politically motivated, while a similar share think it was not. Nearly half of Republicans who have an unfavorable view of Trump do not see the conviction as politically motivated, compared with less than 1 in 10 Republicans who have a positive opinion of him.

Overall opinions of Trump barely budged.

About 6 in 10 U.S. adults have an unfavorable opinion of Trump, which is in line with findings from an AP-NORC poll conducted in February. Four in 10 have a favorable view of Trump, also largely unchanged since February.

The numbers are equally poor for Biden: 4 in 10 U.S. adults have a favorable view of the Democratic president, while about 6 in 10 have a negative one.

Ron Schwartz, a 59-year-old self-described moderate Republican who lives in Dallas, said that Trump was “probably guilty” of the alleged crimes, although Schwartz believes politics were a major factor in the case.

He said the charges should not have been felonies, a level of crime that blocks those convicted from owning guns or voting in many states. Still, Schwartz plans to vote for Trump, as he did in the past two presidential elections, despite having serious concerns about the former president’s character.

“I think he’s a disgusting human being,” Schwartz said. “But he has some good policies and good ideas.”

Independents are split on Trump overall: About 4 in 10 have a positive view, while a similar share have a negative view. A plurality — nearly half — did not express a strong opinion on the conviction, saying they did not approve or disapprove.

Cassi Carey, a 60-year-old independent who lives in suburban Milwaukee, said the conviction does not reflect well on Trump, although she acknowledges she was not paying close attention to the specifics.

“I think Trump is a terrible choice for our country because of his divisiveness,” Carey said. She also lamented the advanced age of Biden, who turns 82 in November.

“Someday in my lifetime, I want very much to be able to vote for a candidate and not against a candidate,” she said.

Overall, Americans are more likely to see Trump’s conviction as bad for the nation.

About 4 in 10 adults describe it as a bad thing for the country overall, while about one-third say it was a good thing and about 2 in 10 say it is neither. As for the U.S. democratic system, about 4 in 10 say the conviction is a good thing, with roughly the same share calling it a bad thing.

Trump continues to be overwhelmingly disliked by Democrats: 9 in 10 Democrats have an unfavorable view of him, with roughly 8 in 10 saying their opinion is “very unfavorable.”

Democrat Oscar Baza, a 29-year-old Mexican immigrant who lives in Los Angeles, said he approves of the Trump verdict, which is evidence of “the judicial process working as it should.”

“I just think it’s really worrisome that he’s on the ballot,” Baza said. “If you’ve been convicted of 34 counts of anything, you probably shouldn’t be leading anything, you should be going to therapy.”

At issue is alleged collusion between the Proft-run People Who Play By The Rules, an independent expenditure political action committee that was funded with $42 million from national ultraconservative mega donor Richard Uihlein of Lake Forest, and Bailey’s campaign.

Democrats contended Bailey’s appearances on Proft’s radio show helped telegraph the theme for TV spots the PAC ran on behalf of the Republican candidate, and that the ads used background footage borrowed from Bailey campaign that were posted to YouTube.

Testimony during a hearing on the complaint revealed a secret meeting at a Chicago area county club the day after Bailey’s GOP primary win that was arranged at Proft’s request. At the meeting, Proft put a white envelope on a table and told Bailey it contained $20 million from Uihlein. If Bailey wanted direct access to the cash, he had to fire his staff and name Proft as his campaign manager. If he didn’t, Uihlein’s money would go to Proft’s PAC.

Bailey opted to keep his staff and Uihlein’s money stayed with Proft’s PAC. But Democrats contended the offer was an indication that more Uihlein money was available for the campaign.

While state and federal laws say independent expenditure PACs are not allowed to coordinate campaign spending with a candidate, hearing examiner James Tenuto basically said that the complaint against Proft’s PAC cannot be sustained because the state lacks rules to define such coordination.

Tenuto said an examination of the facts and evidence presented “does not demonstrate ‘an agreement or some other activity which indicates some level of material involvement in the decision making between the independent committee and candidate of his campaign.’ Thus ‘coordination’ among the respondents has not been proven.”

Tenuto noted that Democrats cited federal rules and regulations to try to establish proof of coordination between Proft and Bailey. But, he said, “Illinois has not adopted any rules and regulations concerning independent expenditures” and said rules or statutory changes are needed to “clarify which activities are acceptable and/or prohibited in regards to independent expenditures.”

Tenuto recommended the board either dismiss the complaint or find that the alleged violations of coordination had not been proven.

Tenuto’s May 31 recommendation was made public Tuesday in advance of the board’s June 18 meeting.

Proft, a resident of Naples, Florida, has been subject to several complaints before the State Board of Elections. His People Who Play By The Rules PAC owes an outstanding $25,500 in fines for failing to timely file campaign financial reports.

Last month, a Lake County judge ordered political mailers designed to resemble legitimate newspapers remove street addresses and birthdates from voter lists it posted in violation of state statutes. The publications, referred to as “pink slime” journalism, are run by Brian Timpone, a business associate of Proft,  Proft has indicated he is involved in the business.

Senior Judge Robert Hinkle said the state went too far when it barred transgender minors from being prescribed puberty blockers and hormonal treatments with their parents’ permission. He also stopped the state from requiring that transgender adults only receive treatment from a doctor and not from a registered nurse or other qualified medical practitioner. And he barred a ban on online treatment for transgender adults.

Hinkle said transgender people are constitutionally entitled to the legitimate treatment they need and, quoting the late Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., compared those who oppose it to those who were once against equality for minorities and women.

“Some transgender opponents invoke religion to support their position, just as some once invoked religion to support their racism or misogyny,” Hinkle wrote in his 105-page decision. “Transgender opponents are of course free to hold their beliefs. But they are not free to discriminate against transgender individuals just for being transgender.

“In time, discrimination against transgender individuals will diminish, just as racism and misogyny have diminished,” he continued. “To paraphrase a civil-rights advocate from an earlier time, the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’ office blasted Hinkle’s ruling, issuing a statement calling it “erroneous,” and vowing to appeal.

“Through their elected representatives, the people of Florida acted to protect children in this state, and the Court was wrong to override their wishes,” the statement said. “As we’ve seen here in Florida, the United Kingdom, and across Europe, there is no quality evidence to support the chemical and physical mutilation of children. These procedures do permanent, life-altering damage to children, and history will look back on this fad in horror.”

But those who sued the state celebrated the decision.

Lucien Hamel, a transgender adult, issued a statement saying, “I’m so relieved the court saw there is no medical basis for this law — it was passed just to target transgender people like me and try to push us out of Florida.”

“This is my home. I’ve lived here my entire life,” he said. “This is my son’s home. I can’t just uproot my family and move across the country. The state has no place interfering in people’s private medical decisions, and I’m relieved that I can once again get the healthcare that I need here in Florida.”

A mother of one of the children who sued said, “This ruling means I won’t have to watch my daughter needlessly suffer because I can’t get her the care she needs.”

“Seeing Susan’s fear about this ban has been one of the hardest experiences we’ve endured as parents,” said the woman. She was identified in court documents only as Jane Doe and her daughter as Susan Doe to protect their privacy. “All we’ve wanted is to take that fear away and help her continue to be the happy, confident child she is now.”

DeSantis had signed the law last year as he was gearing up for a presidential campaign that was highly based on culture wars.

“We never did this through all of human history until like, what, two weeks ago? Now this is something?” he told cheering supporters as he signed the bill. “They’re having third graders declare pronouns? We’re not doing the pronoun Olympics in Florida.”

At trial, Florida’s attorneys had conceded that the state cannot stop someone from pursuing a transgender identity, but said it can regulate medical care.

For minors, the only treatments at issue are puberty blocking treatments and cross-sex hormones — giving testosterone to someone assigned female at birth, for example. Those who were undergoing treatment when the law was adopted in May 2023 were allowed to continue. Surgery, which is rare for minors, was still blocked.

For adults, treatment was still allowed but could only be done by a physician instead of an advanced practice registered nurse or other professional. It required the patient to sign a consent form in person while in the same room with the doctor, meaning the treatment couldn’t be done on a video call or otherwise online — something not normally required with other medical procedures. Violators could be charged criminally and medical providers could lose their licenses.

Hinkle wrote that Florida had long allowed treatment for gender dysphoria, the feeling that one’s gender identity does not match one’s sex as registered at birth.

“But then the political winds changed,” Hinkle wrote. He was appointed to the bench by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1996.

For 99% of people, Hinkle wrote, their biological sex and their gender identity are the same. But for a few, they differ. Hinkle said the state admitted that during the trial, even if some won’t believe it and think transgender people are making a choice like “whether to read Shakespeare or Grisham.”

“Many people with this view tend to disapprove of all things transgender and so oppose medical care that supports (it),” he said.

He said even though the state concedes it cannot constitutionally block people from identifying as transgender and presenting themselves as they wish, several legislators made it clear in their comments that this was their goal.

At least 25 states have adopted laws restricting or banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, and most of those states face lawsuits.

The only other one to be struck down so far as unconstitutional is the ban in Arkansas, which the state has appealed to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Advocates are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors.

Judges’ orders are in place temporarily blocking enforcement of a ban in Montana and aspects of the ban in Georgia.

The city is weighing the results of a test effort to re-legalize additional dwelling units with an eye on passing far-reaching legislation as soon as next month. The three-year pilot program launched by the City Council in 2021 led to “gentle increase in density” and saw “consistent, but not overwhelming demand,” Department of Housing officials said during a council hearing Tuesday.

The findings show a broader rollout of the relaxed rules could spur naturally occurring affordable rental units while giving homeowners a new source of income, they argued.

“We don’t see (additional dwelling units) as a panacea to our housing shortage, but we do see it as a critical part of the mix,” said Matthew Stern, the Department of Housing’s interim policy director.

The pilot tested the policy in five areas scattered across Chicago. During its run, the city issued permits for the construction of 250 additional dwelling units. Nearly all permits involved North or Northwest Side buildings with two to six units.

“It gives you options,” said Ald. Bennett Lawson, 44th, the interim zoning chair. “It provides units. We are in a housing crisis in our city. We have to build units of all types. Big, small, affordable. Basements, coach houses. This is not going to solve all our problems, but we have to use all the tools.”

The proposal did not face a vote Tuesday. Lawson plans to put his ordinance up for a committee vote later this month with hopes of a final full-council vote in July and said he is confident he has a majority.

While the broad aim of the legislation — legalizing additional dwelling units throughout many residential areas — is set to remain, requirements on where and how such units can be built could change in coming weeks, Lawson said.

The North Side alderman’s current substitute ordinance already includes one major break from the pilot: It would allow building owners to add both a coach house and a conversion unit, as opposed to one or the other. It also would allow for ADUs across more zoning designations, but would require special permitting in some areas zoned for detached single-family homes.

A proposal made by Mayor Brandon Johnson’s administration in April as a part of his “Cut the Tape” initiative would not require such special permitting, instead allowing additional dwelling unit permits by right in more areas.

Changes in zoning and parking requirements caused the construction of additional dwelling units to be banned in Chicago in 1957.

Relaxed additional dwelling unit restrictions could bring a host of benefits to Chicago, Stern said. The units add housing without changing neighborhoods and produce affordable housing without subsidies, he said. They also add an opportunity for intergenerational living and help preserve critical but threatened two-to-six-unit buildings, he said.

Stern added that the proposed change could also help bring potentially thousands of illegally constructed additional dwelling units in Chicago up to code, a view Lawson echoed.

“We have units all across the city in basements and attics that were built to code or close to code that may or may not be legal,” Lawson said. “I think it’s an opportunity for everybody to look at density in a positive way, look at adding stability for families that need multigenerational living and to help pay our taxes.”

Most aldermen appeared supportive of the proposal Tuesday, but several took note of the sharp skew in where additional dwelling units were permitted during the pilot. Just 10 of the 215 permits issued went to buildings in the South, Southeast and West Side pilot zones. The rest went to North and Northwest Side buildings. Ald. Pat Dowell, 3rd, and Ald. Byron Sigcho Lopez, 25th, called for subsidy programs to help homeowners considering the expansions, in an effort to spur development in other parts of the city.

jsheridan@chicagotribune.com

Hunter Biden, 54, stared straight ahead and showed little emotion as the verdict was read after jury deliberations that lasted only three hours over two days in Wilmington, Delaware. He hugged his attorneys, smiled wanly and kissed his wife, Melissa, before leaving the courtroom with her.

President Joe Biden said in a statement issued shortly after the verdict that he would accept the outcome and “continue to respect the judicial process as Hunter considers an appeal.”

Now Hunter Biden and presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, the president’s chief political rival, have both been convicted by American jurors in an election year that has been as much about the courtroom as about campaign events and rallies.

Hunter Biden faces up to 25 years in prison when he is sentenced by U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika, though as a first-time offender he would not get anywhere near the maximum, and there’s no guarantee the judge would send him to prison. She did not set a sentencing date.

Defense attorney Abbe Lowell said they would “continue to vigorously pursue all the legal challenges available.” In a written statement, Hunter Biden said he was disappointed by the outcome but grateful for the support of family and friends.

The jury’s decision was read swiftly after the announcement that it reached a verdict. First lady Jill Biden sat through nearly every day of the trial but did not make it into the courtroom in time to hear the verdict. Hunter Biden walked out of the courthouse holding hands with the first lady and his wife before they got into got into waiting SUVs and drove off.

Joe Biden steered clear of the federal courtroom where his son was tried and said little about the case, wary of appearing to interfere in a criminal matter brought by his own Justice Department. But allies of the Democrat have worried about the toll that the trial — and now the conviction — will take on the 81-year-old, who has long been concerned with his only living son’s health and sustained sobriety.

Hunter Biden’s conviction came just weeks after Trump was found guilty of 34 felony charges related to a hush money payment to a porn actor in the 2016 campaign. The cases are in no way the same, and Hunter Biden is a private citizen who is not running for office. But they have both argued they were victimized by the politics of the moment.

Trump, however, has continued to falsely claim his verdict was “rigged,” while Joe Biden has said he would accept the verdict involving his son and would not seek to pardon him.

In his statement Tuesday, the president said he and the first lady are proud of their son, who says he has been been sober since 2019, and will always be there for him with “love and support.”

Trump’s campaign called the verdict “nothing more than a distraction from the real crimes of the Biden Crime Family.” Trump and his allies have pressed unsubstantiated or debunked allegations that Joe Biden acted while vice president to advance his family members’ foreign business interests.

The verdict came down as the president prepared to give a speech at a conference hosted by the Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund in Washington. He did not mention his son as he spoke about his administration’s efforts to stop gun violence and the need to ban so-called assault weapons.

Hours after the conviction, President Biden hugged his son after landing in Wilmington to spend the night with family before leaving Wednesday for the Group of Seven leaders conference in Italy. Hunter Biden, his wife and their child greeted the president on the tarmac, and the president lingered to visit with them for several minutes.

Jurors found Hunter Biden guilty of lying to a federally licensed gun dealer, making a false claim on the application by saying he was not a drug user and illegally having the gun for 11 days.

The trial played out in the president’s home state, where Hunter Biden grew up and where the family is deeply established. Joe Biden spent 36 years as a senator in Delaware, commuting daily to Washington, and his other son, Beau Biden, was the state attorney general before he died of cancer.

The proceedings put a spotlight on a dark time in Hunter Biden’s life, with deeply personal testimony from former romantic partners and embarrassing evidence, including text messages and photos of Hunter Biden with drug paraphernalia or partially clothed.

In his closing argument on Monday, prosecutor Leo Wise acknowledged the evidence was “ugly.” But he told jurors it was also “absolutely necessary” to prove Hunter was in the throes of addiction when he bought the gun and therefore lied when he checked “no” on the form that asked whether he was “an unlawful user of, or addicted to” drugs.

Before the case went to the jury, the prosecutor urged jurors to pay no mind to members of the president’s family sitting in the courtroom, telling them: “People sitting in the gallery are not evidence.”

David Weiss, the prosecutor who has led the long-running investigation into the president’s son, told reporters the case was about Hunter Biden’s “illegal choices” and “dangerous” conduct.

“No one in this country is above the law,” said Weiss, the Trump-nominated U.S. attorney for Delaware, who was named special counsel by Attorney General Merrick Garland in August. “Everyone must be accountable for their actions.”

Hunter Biden’s lawyers had argued that he did not consider himself an “addict” when he bought the gun. They sought to show he was trying to turn his life around at the time, having completed a rehabilitation program at the end of August 2018.

Hunter Biden’s legal troubles aren’t over. He faces a trial in September in California on charges of failing to pay $1.4 million in taxes, and congressional Republicans have signaled they will keep going after him in their stalled impeachment effort into the president. The president has not been accused or charged with any wrongdoing by prosecutors investigating his son.

Just last year, it appeared that Hunter Biden would avoid the spectacle of a trial so close to the election. Under a deal with prosecutors, he was supposed to plead guilty to misdemeanor tax offenses and avoid prosecution in the gun case if he stayed out of trouble for two years.

But the deal fell apart after Noreika, who was nominated by Trump, questioned unusual aspects of the proposed agreement, and the lawyers could not resolve the matter.

Hunter Biden has said he was charged because the Justice Department bowed to pressure from Republicans who argued the Democratic president’s son was getting special treatment.

____

Richer and Long reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Mike Catalini and Aamer Madhani in Wilmington contributed to this report.

In April, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a request by the same group, the Free Speech Coalition, to block a similar law in Texas.

According to the Indiana law signed by Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb in March, the state’s attorney general and individuals can bring legal action against a website’s operator if material “harmful to minors” is accessible to users under the age of 18.

In addition to Indiana and Texas, similar laws have been enacted in Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Utah and Virginia. Backers of such laws say they protect children from widespread pornography online, while opponents say the laws are vague and raise privacy concerns.

In the complaint filed Monday, the association says the Indiana law is unenforceable and unconstitutional. The group is asking a federal judge in Indianapolis to issue a preliminary injunction against the law before it takes effect on July 1 and to block the law permanently.

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita — listed as a defendant in the lawsuit — said in a post on X that he looks forward to defending the law in court.

“Children shouldn’t be able to easily access explicit material that can cause them harm,” the post said. “It’s commonsense.”

The Texas law remains in effect as the Supreme Court weighs the Free Speech Coalition’s full appeal. The Utah law was upheld by a federal judge in August, and a federal judge dismissed a challenge against Louisiana’s law in October.