Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson Pushes 'Grocery Tax'
Chicago is facing a massive budget gap, and its mayor has a possible solution.
But it's not one that's sitting well with all retailers.
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson wants "to reinstate a 1% grocery tax" in Chicago, according to Fox 32. Johnson's push for the tax came after Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker eliminated it in the state budget, the television station reported.
The Chicago Tribune also reported that Johnson "is pushing aldermen to add a city grocery tax in Chicago as the long-established state grocery levy expires."
The grocery tax would bring in about $80 million for the city's 2026 budget, The Tribune reported.
According to the Chicago Sun-Times, the push came from "top mayoral aides" to alderpeople.
Chief Financial Officer Jill Jaworski and Budget Director Annette Guzman spoke to alderpeople at a revenue subcommittee and told them that Chicago needs "a local version of the state-eliminated 1% grocery tax," the Sun-Times reported.
They also said that, in order to close a $1.12 billion budget gap, the City of Chicago "needs a sales tax on professional services" and "a greater share of state income and personal property replacement taxes," the Sun-Times reported.
According to Fox 32, the Illinois Retail Merchants Association (IRMA) is concerned about a grocery tax for Chicagoans.
"The message is that they have to consider the consumer," said Rob Karr the president and CEO of IRMA to Fox 32.
"The retailer considers the consumer every day. Grocery, as you know, is one of the most narrow profit margins of all the industries that are out there, but particularly in retail. And so they really have no place else to go with this. That's something that has to get passed on to the consumer, so it really comes down, again to are the city leaders, is the mayor and the city council willing to impose to yet another financial pressure on their consumers?" he added.Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson Pushes 'Grocery Tax' first appeared on Men's Journal on Jun 6, 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
10 hours ago
- Forbes
Two Courts Uphold UPEPA Fee Awards After Voluntary Dismissals
The UPEPA is weathering appellate decisions just fine so far. The Uniform Public Express Protection Act (UPEPA) in just a few years has become the most ubiquitous body of Anti-SLAPP law in the world. Like most other Anti-SLAPP laws, the UPEPA provides for a special motion to cause the dismissal at an early stage of meritless litigation which infringes upon a person's free speech and related rights. If the defendant in such a case wins the special motion and the offending cause of action is dismissed, then the defendant who brought the special motion must be awarded their attorney fees, expenses and costs in relation to the special motion. This provides a powerful deterrent to such meritless litigation being brought against them in the first place. But what if, after the UPEPA special motion is brought, the plaintiff who brought the offending cause of action decides not to contest the special motion but instead just voluntarily dismisses it? In that instance, can the defendant who went to the trouble of preparing and filing the UPEPA special motion still be awarded attorney fees for their trouble? The answer to this question was recently answered by two courts in different states (New Jersey and Kentucky) on two consecutive days, and which reached the same conclusion. We'll examine the opinions of those courts now. These opinions are Satz v. Keset Starr, 2025 WL 1522032 ( May 29, 2025), and Johnson v. Kearney, 2025 WL 1536078 ( May 30, 2025). In the Satz case in New Jersey, the defendants circulated a flyer that advocated that the plaintiff get a religious divorce. The flyer contained an unfavorable photo of the plaintiff and suggested a protest outside of the home of the plaintiff's parents. The plaintiff sued the defendants for a variety of things related to the flyer and asked for $30 million in damages. When the plaintiff moved for default judgment, the defendants responded to the motion with request that the case be dismissed under the UPEPA. Ultimately, the court granted the defendants' motion and that same day the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its complaint. The defendants then moved to reopen the case for the purpose of assessing fees, costs and expenses under the UPEPA. The trial court, however, refused to consider the defendants' request on the basis that there was no evidence that the plaintiff filed his action was either frivolous or intended to harass the defendants. The defendants appealed this ruling. Now turning to the Johnson case in Kentucky, where two candidates in the 2024 Republican primary for state attorney were squabbling over an endorsement by the local Fraternal Order of Police. Ultimately, one candidate sued the other, and the other candidate (the defendant) filed a UPEPA special motion to dismiss. Concluding that the plaintiff had not acted in bad faith, the trial judge encouraged the plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss the complaint with prejudice to refiling. The plaintiff did dismiss the complaint and the judge refused to award the defendant fees, costs and expenses because the case had been dismissed. The defendant appealed this ruling. The courts in both Satz and Johnson reached the same conclusion in the same way. Both courts determined that the outcome could be determined by interpreting the plain text of the UPEPA without the need to reference external sources. The statutory interpretation of the UPEPA in these cases was very straightforward: First, the UPEPA provides that a voluntary dismissal of a challenged cause of action does not affect the moving party's right to seek attorney fees, costs and expenses; Second, the UPEPA deems a party's voluntary dismissal of a challenged cause of action ― while a UPEPA special motion is pending ― to establish that the moving party prevailed on special motion; and Third, the UPEPA states that the award of such attorney fees, costs and expenses is mandatory where the moving party has prevailed on the special motion. Therefore, where a cause of action has been voluntarily dismissed while a UPEPA cause of action is pending, the moving party is entitled to a mandatory award of attorney fees, costs and expenses despite the voluntarily dismissal. This was the ultimate ruling of both courts, which reversed the trial court and remanded the cases for the calculation of the attorney fees, costs and expenses to be awarded to the respective moving parties in each case. The Satz opinion additionally noted that one reason for this outcome was to keep a party who brought an offending cause of action from simply dismissing the cause of action and then possibly re-asserting it later. This would defeat the purpose of the UPEPA to free the defendant from having to further litigate the cause of action. The Johnson opinion commented on the fact that "good faith" by the party who filed the cause of action is not any defense to the UPEPA's mandatory award of attorney fees, costs and expenses ― it doesn't matter at all why that party brought the cause of action, only that it infringes upon protect rights. ANALYSIS Both of these appellate courts arrived at the result desired by the UPEPA drafting committee when we were writing the Act: In the event of a voluntary dismissal after a special motion has been brought, the moving party will still be entitled to mandatory attorney fees, costs and expenses. There was considerable debate within the UPEPA drafting committee over this outcome, mostly due to something called the innocent violator. Basically, the drafting committee realized that the cases which infringe upon protected expression could be divided into two categories. The first category is the classic SLAPP case which is intended to harass, punish, or retaliate, etc., against the speaker for the purpose of making them shut up. Recall that the acronym SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. The 'Strategic' part of this is that the action would intended ― specifically designed ― to cause harm to the speaker by forcing them to incur legal costs in defense. This wrongful intent characterizes this first category of cases infringing protected expression. The second category is exactly the opposite of the first: The second category is where the plaintiff who brought the cause of action had no intent to misuse the cause of action, but instead stumbled into an infringement of public expression because their counsel was lazy or careless, or the public expression issue was very technical and not easy to spot. This is the aforementioned innocent violator. The drafting committee recognized that an innocent violator should be treated differently than somebody who intentionally brought abusive litigation. But how should that treatment differ? There were suggestions that a warning letter should be sent before the special motion was brought, that the innocent violator should be allowed to dismiss or reframe the infringing cause of action without penalty, or that attorney fees should not be assessed against an innocent violator. In their opinions, the Satz and Johnson courts discuss these things as well (although whether the plaintiffs in those cases could be characterized as innocent violators is somewhat dubious). What was the solution? The idea of a warning letter ― similar to that required before a Rule 11 motion for sanctions is brought ― seemed like a good one. But there were at least two problems with this solution. First, it would be a complete waste of time to have a warning letter sent to the first (abusive) category of violators, who at any rate didn't deserve a warning. Second, if a warning letter was sent and the action thereafter voluntarily dismissed before the filing of the special motion, then the defendant (speaker) compensated for the legal fees for having the letter written and such letters can be quite costly. Thus, the warning letter idea was rejected. The next idea, being that the plaintiff should be allowed to voluntarily dismiss the infringing cause of action after the special motion was filed, was similarly rejected. Preparing and filing the special motion is costly, and if the plaintiff was simply allowed to voluntarily dismiss without any penalty, then the defendant could not be compensated for having to prepare and file the special motion. This was also a bad idea for the reason that a first category plaintiff engaged in abusive litigation could simply later re-file the same cause of action and cause the defendant the same trouble all over again. So this idea was rejected too. The third idea was to not assess attorney's fees against an innocent violator. While this sounds at first like a good idea, it is actually a terrible one. The problem here is the UPEPA would first have to define what an innocent violation was, and that would draw into question the plaintiff's intent. The parties would then have to litigate the plaintiff's intent, which would tremendously exacerbate the very litigation that the UPEPA was supposed to have quickly and efficiently gotten rid of in the first place. That idea was quickly axed. Where the UPEPA ended up is accurately described in the Satz and Johnson opinions: The plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss the cause of action that is the subject of the special motion, but that voluntary dismissal is treated as a resolution of the special motion in favor of the speaker and thus entitles the speaker to the mandatory award of attorney fees. This is a suitable middle-ground solution. By voluntarily dismissing the special motion, the plaintiff cuts off the attorney fees incurred by the speaker at the special motion ― the speaker could not, for instance, ask for attorney fees to file a reply brief (since no opposition brief was filed) or to attend the hearing on the special motion (which is no longer necessary). For those who would suggest that this outcome is harsh for an innocent violator, the bottom line is that if somebody is going to litigate in an area which might implicate protected expression issues, then they should be particularly careful. One who has stumbled into a violation of protected expression will not be rewarded by a 'get out of jail' card for their carelessness. This is basically what the Satz and Johnson opinions conclude and in this respect they are both right on target.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Statue honoring Lancaster's first Black business owner completed
LANCASTER, Ohio (WCMH) — There is a new statue in the city of Lancaster honoring Scipio Smith, the man who became the city's first Black business owner in the 1800s. The statue is along Main Street, not far from where Smith's tinsmith shop was located. The statue shows Smith holding an open shackle with the day he was emancipated inscribed on it. He was enslaved in Virginia before being brought to Ohio. 'That was his way of showing you can't stop me, even this chain didn't hold me down,' said Michael Johnson, a local historian and the marketing director for the Fairfield County Heritage Association. 'You can't get much more of an underdog than being born a slave and losing your leg as a child.' Johnson found a brief entry about Smith in a history book. He said he'd never seen an entry quite like it, so he dug deeper. Eventually he learned about Smith's history as a slave. Four years after Smith was freed, he founded the AME church in town, which is now Allen Chapel. Italian eatery from Columbus couple behind Chapman's, Ginger Rabbit to open Friday 'To know he was right here, to know he was responsible for this church,' said Evan Saunders, Pastor of Allen Chapel. 'You don't even know the lives he's touched but yet here 2025 we realize he's touching a whole community with that so his legacy still continues to live on.' About two years after opening the church, Smith opened a tinsmith shop in Lancaster. That made him the city's first Black business owner, according to Johnson. 'He was pretty quick to act once he got his freedom. He knew what he wanted,' Johnson said. 'Opened door for other Black business owners.' Johnson wrote about Smith's story. But he wanted to do more to honor the local legend. About two years ago he started fundraising for a statue. It's now completed, full of symbols and Smith's story. 'For me I think statues are celebrations, they are people we should be looking up to, the ideals they represent, and Scipio, you can't beat his work ethic, his faith, his tenacity, the ability to overcome unbelievable obstacles. You can't beat that story,' Johnson said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Trump v Musk: 10 ways they can further hurt each other
The falling-out between the world's richest person and the president of the world's largest economy will have consequences – for both of them. Elon Musk, as the boss of multiple companies including Tesla, and Donald Trump, who has benefited from Musk's support in his journey to the White House, have had a mutually beneficial relationship up until now. Here are 10 ways in which Musk and Trump could hurt each other if they fail to broker a peace deal. Cancel government contracts related to Musk's businesses Responding to Musk's criticism of his tax and spending bill, Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on Thursday that cancelling the billionaire's government contracts would be a straightforward way to save money. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!' Trump said. In 2024, the New York Times reported that Musk's companies – which include electric vehicle maker Tesla and rocket company SpaceX – have over the past year been promised $3bn across nearly 100 different contracts with 17 federal agencies. Investigate Musk's alleged drug use The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal have made allegations of heavy drug use by Musk, raising questions about Nasa requirements for its contractors – including SpaceX – to maintain a drug-free workforce. The Times alleged that Musk has received advanced warning of the tests. SpaceX has been contacted for comment. Responding to the Times allegations on X last month, Musk wrote: 'to be clear, I am NOT taking drugs!' In 2024 he said he sometimes used ketamine on a doctor's prescription. Challenge Musk's immigration status Steve Bannon, a Trump ally and influential 'alt-right' figure, told the Times on Thursday that Musk's immigration status should be investigated. 'They should initiate a formal investigation of his immigration status, because I am of the strong belief that he is an illegal alien, and he should be deported from the country immediately,' Bannon said of South Africa-born Musk, who is a US citizen. Use general presidential powers against Musk When Trump was elected, observers pointed to the myriad ways in which a Musk-friendly White House administration could benefit the financial interests of the world's richest person. That benign environment, which includes awarding of government contracts and directing federal agencies giving Musk's businesses an easier ride, could of course be turned hostile. Richard Pierce, a law professor at George Washington University and a specialist in government regulation, told the Guardian at the time: 'All federal regulators and prosecutors work for the president. He can tell them to do something or not to do something with the understanding that he will fire them if they disobey.' Ostracise Musk from the Maga movement Trump, as the leader of the 'Make America great again' vanguard, can close doors on Musk. The Republican congressman Troy Nehls excoriated the billionaire on Thursday, telling him: ''You've lost your damn mind.' He added: 'Enough is enough.' Musk can handle such opprobrium and, given his considerable wealth, he is an important source of funding for Republican politicians. Turn X against the White House Musk used his X platform, and his more than 220 million followers on it, to rally support for Trump's victory in the 2024. It also provided a platform for rightwing views that helped publicise the Maga agenda. Theoretically, Musk could at least use his own X account to criticise Trump with as much regularity as he pumped the president's policies (the Tesla chief executive is a prolific user of his own platform). However, this also depends on Musk's influence with the US electorate. Five out of 10 US adults say they have an unfavourable view of Musk, according to the Pew Research Center. But it should be noted that seven out of 10 Republicans or Republican-leaning adults hold a favourable view – he's not going to sway many Democrats who dislike Trump anyway. Form a new political movement Musk, who is worth more than $300bn (£220bn), could divert his considerable financial resources away from the Republican party and start a new political entity. Musk spent $250m on getting Trump elected in 2024, signalling his willingness to invest heavily in politics. On Thursday he posted a poll on X and asked: 'Is it time to create a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle?' More than 80% of the 4.8 million respondents voted 'yes'. Create geopolitical problems with his businesses The Starlink satellite broadband platform, owned by Musk's SpaceX, is playing a key rule in Ukraine's fight against a Russian invasion, while China is an important manufacturing and consumer base for Tesla. Through his businesses, Musk also has political contacts around the world and is regularly photographed in the company of global leaders. However, any damage Musk causes to Trump's international standing or interests will have to be balanced with any knock-on effect on his own businesses. Create problems for Nasa Nasa has a close relationship with Musk's SpaceX, with the company's Dragon spacecraft being used to transport the agency's astronauts to and from the International Space Station. Musk immediately pledged to decommission Dragon in the wake of the Trump spat on Thursday – before quickly signalling an about-face. Nonetheless, SpaceX is a crucial part of Nasa's ISS operations. Tell-all on Trump Musk has been a fixture of Trump's inner circle for a considerable period of time and, as the contents of his X account show, he is capable of taking multiple damaging swipes at people. However, members of Trump's inner circle will have had the same access to Musk, whose personal life is becoming a media staple.
