Major April Holidays Worth $8.68 Billion: When the Supreme Court Overturns Trump's Tariffs and Illinois Seeks Refund

A one-year journey begins with a bold declaration. On April 2, 2025, President Donald Trump announced that day as “Freedom Day” and, with a single stroke, launched one of the most aggressive tariff expansions in modern American economic history. Using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, Trump imposed broad retaliatory trade tariffs against key trading allies, claiming that persistent trade deficits reflected a national emergency threatening U.S. economic stability.

Now, nearly exactly one year later, what started as a celebration ended in the nation’s highest court. On February 20, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court definitively struck down that authority. In a clear 6-3 ruling, the justices unambiguously stated that the president does not have the power under IEEPA to impose tariffs. This decision not only invalidates the legal basis of “Freedom Day,” but also raises a major question: who should bear the consequences of a year of policies later declared unconstitutional?

From Liberation to Reversal: How Tariff Journey Came to an End

First, let’s understand what happened in the early days after Freedom Day. The tariffs imposed included a 25% duty on most products from Canada and Mexico, along with expanded tariffs on goods from China. Additionally, a 10% retaliatory tariff was applied to various other countries worldwide. This tariff expansion bypassed Congress entirely—no legislative approval, only executive orders relying on an aggressive interpretation of emergency economic laws.

The Supreme Court viewed this strategy as out of bounds. In a brief but decisive opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: “We find that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs.” Six justices agreed. Three dissented. The ruling immediately invalidated all tariffs based on IEEPA, plunging the economy into uncertainty and opening the door for potential reparations to those affected.

Illinois Governor Files Suit: $8.68 Billion for Compensation

Amid the shock of the court’s decision, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker acted swiftly. He sent an official letter to President Trump—not with a polite request, but with a firm demand: $8,679,261,600 in restitution on behalf of the people of Illinois. The figure translates to roughly $1,700 per household in the state, based on an estimate that 5,105,448 families in Illinois bore the burden of tariffs now declared unlawful by the Supreme Court.

In an open letter published publicly, Pritzker left no room for interpretation: “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 they are also unconstitutional.” The governor added that tariffs are a form of hidden taxation most heavily borne by working families.

To increase pressure, Pritzker released an official invoice marked “Due Date – Late Payment,” with a warning that if the demand is not met, Illinois will pursue further legal action. This is not mere political rhetoric—it’s a financial ultimatum from a governor who believes his residents have suffered tangible, measurable economic losses.

Why Illinois Was Hit Hardest by Tariff Policies

To understand why Illinois chose to calculate and demand this specific amount, we need to look at the state’s economic structure. Illinois is not just any state—it is the heart of American trade. The state conducts over $127 billion annually in trade with Canada, Mexico, and China alone, three countries that were primary targets of the 2025 tariff policies.

When tariffs were imposed on imports from these trading partners, the impact was not abstract. From a manufacturing business perspective, Illinois factories relying on foreign components saw their raw material costs spike suddenly. This is not just corporate concern—shrinking profit margins mean less investment, and that threatens jobs.

From an agricultural standpoint, the situation is even more dire. Illinois is one of the top exporters of soybeans and feed grains in the U.S. When China and other countries retaliated with tariffs on American agricultural products, Illinois farmers faced direct income threats. According to data from the Illinois Farm Bureau, this pressure cascaded along the entire supply chain—from farmers planting crops to businesses exporting them.

For consumers, the effects show up in retail stores, supermarkets, and gas stations. Items from food to hardware, electronics to fuel—everything experienced price inflation as factories and distributors passed tariff costs onto buyers. Analyses from JPMorgan Chase Institute and the Associated Press indicate that tariffs paid by mid-sized U.S. businesses have tripled in recent years, with most of these costs—not absorbed by foreign exporters—being passed directly to American consumers’ wallets.

White House Response and Questions About Reparations

The White House did not remain silent. A spokesperson for President Trump responded swiftly, redirecting criticism. They argued that “the heavy burden of taxes and high regulations in Illinois is comparable to the personal enrichment of JB Pritzker himself,” and added that if the governor truly wants to provide economic relief, he should start with his own state government. This exchange reflects deeper political divides over who is responsible for the economic impacts of trade policies.

The bigger question remains: will refunds be issued? Businesses nationwide are already urging the federal government to consider compensation for costs paid under tariffs now declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Illinois is among the first entities to explicitly calculate and target a specific amount, but it’s almost certain not to be the last. This issue is not just about money—it’s about legal precedent and government accountability.

What’s Next: New Global Tariffs and Ongoing Uncertainty

Although the Supreme Court’s ruling invalidates the legal basis for “Freedom Day” tariffs, it does not eliminate all presidential tariff authority. The Trade Act of 1974 still provides an alternative pathway. Shortly after the ruling, Trump signed a new executive order imposing a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of that older law. With this tactic, broader tariff strategies continue under a different legal foundation—a move indicating that the trade war initiated on “Freedom Day” is not over.

The financial implications are significant. According to the Penn Wharton Budget Model at the University of Pennsylvania, over $175 billion in potential U.S. tariff revenue could be at risk following this court decision. This estimate, first reported by Reuters, highlights the scale of the threat to government revenue—and, more importantly, the potential financial liability if reparations for unlawful tariffs are pursued.

The journey that began with a grand declaration on Freedom Day continues, now in courts and negotiations, with billions of dollars and thousands of businesses waiting to see how the resolution unfolds.