Supreme Court Decision Overturns Presidential Tariff: Illinois Becomes the First State to Seek $8.68 Billion in Compensation

Unexpectedly, the nation’s highest legal authority has changed the tariff game played by the White House. On February 20, the U.S. Supreme Court took a bold step by overturning the previous authority held by the executive branch to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). In a decisive 6–3 ruling, the justices stated that the law does not grant the president the power to set tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion, “We conclude that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.”

This decision has major consequences. Tariffs previously enacted by the president under IEEPA—including a 25% duty on nearly all imports from Canada and Mexico, expanded taxes on Chinese goods, and retaliatory tariffs of 10% on many other countries—are now declared to lack a solid legal foundation. However, this ruling opens the door for surprising state-level retaliatory measures.

First Lawsuit from Illinois: $8.68 Billion in Damages

Illinois is the first state to take concrete action. Governor JB Pritzker filed a spectacular damages claim against the president, demanding that the White House return $8,679,261,600 to its residents. This amount translates to about $1,700 per Illinois household, based on 5,105,448 families in the state.

In a public letter, Pritzker did not hold back. “Your tariff taxes have caused chaos for farmers, angered our allies, and driven food prices to the sky. This morning, the Supreme Court justices you appointed told you that your tariffs are also unconstitutional,” he wrote critically.

The governor further emphasized with even stronger language: “On behalf of the people of Illinois, I demand the return of $1,700 for every household in Illinois. With 5,105,448 households in my state, the total loss you owe amounts to $8,679,261,600.”

To add pressure, Pritzker even released an official invoice marked “Due Date – Late Payment,” warning that if the demand is not met, Illinois will take “further action.” The accompanying note states, “Illinois families are paying the price for illegal tariffs—in grocery stores, hardware stores, and at the dinner table. Tariffs are taxes, and working families are the ones paying.”

Why Illinois Is at the Center of Economic Impact

Why has Illinois been so heavily affected by the president’s tariff policies? The answer lies in the state’s complex economic profile and its extensive dependence on global trade.

Illinois is one of America’s largest economic hubs. Its economy is highly diverse, including large-scale agriculture, strong manufacturing centers, and extensive logistics and distribution infrastructure around Chicago. Data shows Illinois conducts over $127 billion annually in trade with Canada, Mexico, and China—three of the four main trading partners that received retaliatory tariffs.

The trade implications are serious. For manufacturing businesses, tariffs on imported components directly increase production costs. For Illinois farmers, major soybean and grain exporters, retaliatory tariffs mean significant export losses. For ordinary consumers, tariffs on Canada mean higher prices for cooking oil, more expensive imported beer, and heavier costs for electronics and other consumer goods.

According to Illinois Farm Bureau data, the state’s agricultural sector faces increased risks from retaliatory tariffs, threatening the income of farmers in one of the largest agricultural export states in the U.S.

Hidden Costs Paid by Consumers

Research from Penn Wharton Budget Model at the University of Pennsylvania reveals a troubling reality: the tariffs paid by medium-sized businesses are not fully borne by foreign producers. According to a study cited by the Associated Press and confirmed by JPMorgan Chase Institute, in recent years, tariffs paid by U.S. medium-sized businesses have tripled. Most importantly, the majority of these additional costs are passed on to domestic consumers rather than absorbed by foreign exporters.

This means Illinois families—especially working families—shopping at convenience stores, hardware stores, and restaurants are the ones truly feeling the financial strain from the president’s tariffs, now overturned by the Supreme Court. That’s why Pritzker’s estimate of $1,700 per household is not just an abstract number but a reflection of the real burden borne by millions of Illinois families.

White House Response and Upcoming Legal Battles

The White House responded sharply. A spokesperson said, “The heavy burden of taxes and excessive regulations in Illinois is only comparable to JB Pritzker’s own personal bloating.” The spokesperson added that if Pritzker truly wants to provide economic relief for Illinois, “he should start with his own government,” implying that Illinois’ economic problems stem from state management, not federal tariff policies.

Unanswered Big Questions

The Supreme Court’s ruling limits the president’s power to use IEEPA but does not eliminate his authority over tariffs altogether. Just three days after the decision, the president signed a new executive order imposing a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. Thus, although the legal basis for the “Freedom Day” tariffs—initially claimed by the president about 11 months ago—has been struck down, the broader tariff strategy continues under a different legal framework.

This raises critical questions: will the new tariffs under Section 122 withstand similar legal challenges? How many other states will follow Illinois in seeking damages?

According to Penn Wharton estimates, over $175 billion in U.S. tariff revenue could be at risk after the Supreme Court’s decision. This figure, first reported by Reuters, highlights the enormous scale of potential compensation claims from companies and states arguing they paid tariffs without proper legal authority.

Illinois may just be a small part of a larger story. The battle between presidential executive power, Supreme Court authority, and state economic interests has just entered a more complex and unpredictable chapter.