Illinois
Illinois joins several states filing suit over Trump order ending birthright citizenship
Illinois joined a list of states filing a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s new executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship.
Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul announced the lawsuit Tuesday, arguing Trump’s order violates the constitutional rights to which all children born in the U.S. are entitled.
“That one of Donald Trump’s first day[s] in office as president should be so diametrically opposed to our values as Americans is incredibly disappointing, though not surprising. The children born in the U.S. to immigrants are entitled to the rights and privileges that go along with U.S. citizenship,” Raoul said in a statement. “We need to discuss bipartisan commonsense immigration reforms, but denying birthright citizenship, which dates back centuries and has been upheld twice by the U.S. Supreme Court, is not the solution. As Attorney General, and as the proud son of Haitian immigrants, I will continue to stand with my fellow attorneys general to defend the constitutional rights of all children born in this country.”
Attorneys general from more than a dozen other states also sued to block Trump’s move.
The order would end a decades-old immigration policy known as birthright citizenship guaranteeing that U.S.-born children are citizens regardless of their parents’ status.
Trump’s roughly 700-word executive order, issued late Monday, amounts to a fulfillment of something he’s talked about during the presidential campaign. But whether it succeeds is far from certain amid what is likely to be a lengthy legal battle over the president’s immigration policies.
Here’s a closer look at birthright citizenship, Trump’s executive order and reaction to it:
What is birthright citizenship?
Birthright citizenship means anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. People, for instance, in the United States on a tourist or other visa or in the country illegally can become the parents of a citizen if their child is born here.
It’s been in place for decades and enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, supporters say. But Trump and allies dispute the reading of the amendment and say there need to be tougher standards on becoming a citizen.
What does Trump’s order say?
The order questions that the 14th Amendment extends citizenship automatically to anyone born in the United States.
The 14th Amendment was born in the aftermath of the Civil War and ratified in 1868. It says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Trump’s order excludes the following people from automatic citizenship: those whose mothers were not legally in the United States and whose fathers were not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents; people whose mothers were in the country legally but on a temporary basis and whose fathers were not citizens or legal permanent residents.
It goes on to bar federal agencies from recognizing the citizenship of people in those categories. It takes effect 30 days from Tuesday, on Feb. 19.
What is the history of the issue?
The 14th Amendment did not always guarantee birthright citizenship to all U.S.-born people. Congress did not authorize citizenship for all Native Americans born in the United States, for instance, until 1924.
In 1898 an important birthright citizenship case unfolded in the U.S. Supreme Court. The court held that Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrants, was a U.S. citizen because he was born in the country. After a trip abroad, he had faced denied reentry by the federal government on the grounds that he wasn’t a citizen under the Chinese Exclusion Act.
But some advocates of immigration restrictions have argued that while the case clearly applied to children born to parents who are both legal immigrants, it’s less clear whether it applies to children born to parents without legal status.
What has the reaction to Trump’s order been?
More than a dozen states, plus the District of Columbia and San Francisco, sued in federal court to block Trump’s order.
Raoul and multiple other states said the executive order means, for the first time since the 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868, that babies born each month who would have been citizens will no longer enjoy the privileges and benefits of citizenship.
“If allowed to stand, the infants stripped of their United States citizenship under the executive order will lose their most basic rights and will be forced to live under the threat of deportation. They will lose eligibility for a wide range of federal benefits programs, including their ability to obtain a Social Security number and, as they age, to work lawfully. They will also lose their rights to vote, serve on juries, and to secure passports. Despite the Constitution’s guarantee of citizenship, thousands of children will – for the first time – lose their ability to fully and fairly participate in American society as a citizen,” Raoul said in a statement.
Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker said the state plans to “fight back.”
“Here in Illinois we are going to stand up, we are going to fight back. We are going to follow the law and we are going to make sure they are following the law,” he said.
New Jersey Democratic Attorney General Matt Platkin said Tuesday that presidents might have broad authority but they are not kings.
“The president cannot, with a stroke of a pen, write the 14th Amendment out of existence, period,” he said.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, a U.S. citizen by birthright and the nation’s first Chinese American elected attorney general, said the lawsuit was personal for him.
“The 14th Amendment says what it means, and it means what it says —- if you are born on American soil, you are an American. Period. Full stop,” he said. “There is no legitimate legal debate on this question. But the fact that Trump is dead wrong will not prevent him from inflicting serious harm right now on American families like my own.”
Not long after Trump signed the order, immigrant rights groups filed suit to stop it.
Chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union in New Hampshire, Maine and Massachusetts along with other immigrant rights advocates filed a suit in New Hampshire federal court.
The suit asks the court to find the order to be unconstitutional. It highlights the case of a woman identified as “Carmen,” who is pregnant but is not a citizen. The lawsuit says she has lived in the United States for more than 15 years and has a pending visa application that could lead to permanent status. She has no other immigration status, and the father of her expected child has no immigration status either, the suit says.
“Stripping children of the ‘priceless treasure’ of citizenship is a grave injury,” the suit said. “It denies them the full membership in U.S. society to which they are entitled.”
Other states that have filed suit include California, Massachusetts, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin.
Illinois
Weather service assessing damage across Iowa, Illinois and Missouri
The National Weather Service has teams of storm surveryors in the field April 18 investigating several reports of severe storms and tornado touch downs across eastern Iowa, northwest Illinois and northeast Missouri.
According to the weather service’s website, windgusts of up to 60 to 70 mph along with teacup-sized hail and several tornadoes were reported April 17.
Many homes and outbuildings were damaged, trees were uprooted and power lines were downed in Lena, Illinois, where the most significant damage occurred, the site pointed out.
Very strong winds also were reported near Washington, Iowa, and Colmar, Illinois, where several outbuildings and grain bins were destroyed.
The weather service received reports of confirmed and possible tornadoes in the areas of Lena, Pecatonica, Shirland, Rockton, Roscoe and Capron.
The teams will be assessing damage this weekend into next week along with county emergency management teams to determine what types of storms occurred and their paths.
Dozens of power outages were reported, as well.
As of the afternoon of April 18, ComEd was reporting 85 active power outages across northern Illinois, down from 241 on April 17, and 6,751 customers affected, down from more than 18,000.
The bulk of those outages and the most customers impacted are concentrated in Jo Daviess and Stephenson counties.
Illinois
5 tornadoes confirmed in Illinois from Friday’s storms
Freeze Watch
from MON 12:00 AM CDT until MON 9:00 AM CDT, Lake County, Kankakee County, La Salle County, DuPage County, Northern Will County, DeKalb County, Southern Will County, Kendall County, Southern Cook County, Northern Cook County, Grundy County, Eastern Will County, Kane County, McHenry County, Lake County, Newton County, Jasper County, Porter County
Illinois
‘Credit card chaos’? Financial institutions bet big on repeal of first-of-its-kind Illinois law
“Credit cards may not work for sales tax or tips starting July 1.”
By now, you’ve heard that claim, but whether it’s true depends on who you ask.
The ads — funded by the Electronic Payments Coalition of banks, credit unions and card companies — argue that Illinois lawmakers must repeal the state’s first-in-the-nation Interchange Fee Prohibition Act, slated to take effect July 1. That law prohibits financial institutions from charging “swipe,” or interchange, fees on the tax and tip portions of consumer bills and bans them from making up the fees elsewhere.
If it’s not repealed? “Credit card chaos” may ensue, the ads warn.
While the financial institutions are quick to cite a list of things that could hypothetically happen if the law isn’t repealed, it’s harder to pin down what’s being done and by who to comply with the law two years after it was signed.
“The global payment system is not set up to where any one party to a transaction can make this happen on their own,” Ashley Sharp, of the Illinois Credit Union Association said at a Capitol news conference Wednesday. “There are multiple parties to every electronic transaction.”
The financial institutions are adamant that the global payment system as it exists today can’t discern the difference between tax, tips and total, and it would need to be retooled at a heavy cost to banks, card companies, merchants, point-of-sale companies and more.
Instead of complying, they say, the card companies could decide to stop serving Illinois or drastically alter the way the consumer interacts with merchants at the point of sale.
An alternate reality
But as with all matters in Springfield, there’s another big-monied and powerful group on the other side of the issue. The Illinois Retail Merchants Association says the credit card companies already track all the information they need, and it’s a “complete fabrication” to say that it would take more than a mere coding change to implement the state law.
Take your restaurant receipt, for example.
“You have the subtotal, the sales tax, the tip, if it’s applicable, and then the grand total, right? All they have to do is move their fee from the grand total to the subtotal,” Rob Karr, president of IRMA, said.
While card networks operate in over 200 countries with as many different laws, they say the only information the card processors ask for in any of them is the grand total. The receipt example, they say, erroneously conflates the point of sale with the actual processing of payments.
In short, the two sides present starkly different realities — a muddying of the water that’s not uncommon at the Capitol.
But there is one concrete truth: The financial institutions have a lot to lose, and not just in Illinois.
The tax and tip prohibition would shave approximately 10% off the revenue that banks and credit unions receive from retailers via interchange fees — a transfer of wealth likely to number in the hundreds of millions. It would also create massive noncompliance fines.
And then there’s the issue of precedent. The banks challenged the law but lost in court. Absent a successful appeal, the remaining battlefields would be other state legislatures.
If the card companies implement Illinois’ law, they’d be providing a blueprint for states across the nation to emulate — driving potential revenue loss into the billions.
Thus far, Ben Jackson of the Illinois Bankers Association said, it hasn’t opened the floodgates, although some 30 states are considering similar action.
Still, it’s no wonder then, that the Electronic Payments Coalition has pulled out all the stops in its seven-figure ad campaign to repeal the law.
How we got here
To fully understand the ongoing slugfest between banks and retailers, you have to go back to May 2024.
But first, an explanation of interchange fees. Each time a shopper swipes their credit or debit card, it sets off a complicated string of payments between banks. The retailer’s bank pays an “interchange fee,” typically around 1% to 2% of the transaction cost, to the consumer’s bank. The fees include both a set amount and a percentage of the transaction, but the credit card companies, namely Visa and Mastercard, control how they’re calculated.
The financial institutions say interchange fees help fund credit card reward programs and security upgrades and provide compensation for bearing the risk of fraud. The hit to interchange revenue, Jackson said, would inevitably lessen reward program offerings. Sharp said credit unions, as not-for-profit cooperatives, use the revenue to offer lower rates to customers.
But the fees have long drawn the ire of retailers and small businesses, which sometimes pass the costs directly to consumers via a surcharge on bills.
It comes down to this: The retailers don’t think they should have to pay a fee on the tax and tip portion of a transaction that they don’t keep. And the financial institutions say if they’re handling those funds, they should be compensated for doing so via interchange fees.
As for the Illinois law’s passage, it was, as the ads claim, tucked into the budget two years ago, giving little time for the bankers et al to mount an opposition campaign.
Gov. JB Pritzker and lawmakers agreed to raise about $101 million in revenue to plug a budget hole by putting a $1,000 monthly cap on the “retailer’s exemption,” a tax break retailers claim for being the state’s de facto sales tax collectors.
But the retailers weren’t going to take that lying down, and IRMA successfully lobbied for the long-sought tax and tip exemption.
After the law passed, the financial institutions quickly sued.
To avoid uncertainty as the case played out, lawmakers delayed the measure’s effective date from July 1 last year to the same date this year.
U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall ultimately determined in February that Illinois is within its right to regulate the fees. She partially rejected a portion of the law that prohibited banks from sharing certain data, which the credit unions say creates different rules for different institutions and further uncertainty.
The case is now pending appeal, and the legislative process is starting anew.
This time, the financial institutions have mounted a dual front in the court of public opinion.
The cost of compliance
Karr estimated the prohibition would bring in “north of $200 million” for retailers — essentially letting them pocket that sum instead of transferring it to the banks. A study by the Electronic Payments Coalition pegged the number at $118 million, estimating that about 40% of the interchange windfall would go to the 40 largest retailers.
Even so, Karr said, the largest retailers are subject to the $1,000 monthly retailer exemption cap that accompanied the swipe fee ban, while smaller retailers don’t reach that mark. Add in their cut on reimbursed swipe fees, and it amounts to what Karr calls “the largest small business relief that Illinois has ever passed.”
But Jackson argued the cost of retailers complying could eat up any benefits for smaller retailers.
As for compliance, Kendall wrote in her February opinion that “It is an open question whether the transaction process could adapt to the impact of the IFPA in time.”
“The Interchange Fee Provision is indisputably disruptive, requiring additional investments, hires, and new procedures to replace the current process for authorizing and settling debit and credit card transactions,” she wrote.
The financial institutions argue it can’t all be done by July 1. Kendall said the parties involved know what’s required of them.
“But those procedural changes are the product of an ecosystem built by Payment Card Networks and financial institutions to facilitate consumer transactions,” she wrote. “And these entities understand the onus of IFPA compliance is on them.”
Per the coalition, compliance “would require coordination across the industry and regulators worldwide,” including with the International Organization for Standardization. It would also require more data collection, creating privacy concerns, they say.
Those global changes would require testing and certification of new equipment. Depending on their card companies or point-of-sale vendors, retailers may need to invest in new equipment, software and training.
Banks and credit unions may also have to add staff to process rebates under the law. It allows retailers or their processing companies to petition their financial institutions for reimbursement on fees charged on tax and tips within 180 days of a transaction.
If financial institutions don’t comply within 30 days, the law provides for civil penalties of $1,000 per each transaction — and hundreds of millions of these transactions happen annually.
So will that chaos come to fruition?
Instead of complying, according to the coalition’s literature, the card companies could just stop processing cards altogether in Illinois. They could also stop processing tax and tip portions or require two separate swipes for the subtotal and the tax and tip portion of bills.
Such claims aren’t uncommon in the legislature’s annual adjournment push.
Sports betting companies, for example, threatened to leave Illinois when the state raised its gambling taxes in the same budget cycle that yielded the interchange fee prohibition two years ago. Instead, they adapted, because Illinois has a lot of bettors — and there’s even more card users.
Karr accused the coalition of ulterior motives in their use of hypothetical language.
“There is no need for chaos,” he said. “The only chaos is if the credit card companies impose it themselves on their consumers.”
Ultimately, lawmakers will have to weigh how compelling the arguments are, if the courts don’t intervene first.
It’s possible that the 7th Circuit appellate court — or even the U.S. Supreme Court — gives the banks a win. But oral arguments are slated for May 13, meaning the appellate court might not rule by the time the law is slated to take effect.
Adding a new wrinkle on Wednesday, the federal office of the Comptroller of the Currency, a subset of the U.S. Treasury Department, appeared poised to issue an order preempting Illinois’ law. It hadn’t been published as of late Wednesday, making its impact unclear.
“While the office has failed to explain their reasoning or allow public review, it’s clear the goal is an end-run around the legal process after a judge recently upheld the law,” Karr said.
As for the legislative prospects, state Rep. Margaret Croke, D-Chicago, says she’s seen enough to be concerned. The Democratic nominee for comptroller is sponsoring a bill to fully repeal Illinois’ interchange fee prohibition.
But as of last week, she said she wasn’t planning to move it. Instead, she finds it more likely that lawmakers once again delay the law’s implementation.
“If this is a policy that the state of Illinois decides they’re going to want to have, then we need to make sure we’re doing it properly,” she said.
___
This story was originally published by Capitol News Illinois and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.
-
Montana5 minutes ago
Montana Lottery Big Sky Bonus results for April 19, 2026
-
Nebraska11 minutes ago
Nebraska Lottery results: See winning numbers for Pick 3, Pick 5 on April 19, 2026
-
Nevada17 minutes agoArmed Robbery at the Tamarack Casino
-
New Hampshire23 minutes ago
NH Lottery Pick 3 Day, Pick 3 Evening winning numbers for April 19, 2026
-
New Jersey29 minutes ago
NJ Lottery Pick-3, Pick-4, Cash 5, Millionaire for Life winning numbers for Sunday, April 19
-
New Mexico35 minutes agoLos Alamos Public Schools Students Compete At 2026 New Mexico State Science & Engineering Fair
-
North Carolina41 minutes ago
NC Lottery Pick 3 Day, Pick 3 Evening results for April 19, 2026
-
North Dakota47 minutes agoWindy conditions fuel shop fire in rural Mapleton