Two cryptocurrency trade groups have asked an Illinois court to block a new 0.2% tax on digital-asset transactions before the measure is scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1, 2027, arguing that the state’s first-of-its-kind levy could violate federal and state law.
The Crypto Council for Innovation and the Blockchain Association filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in the Circuit Court of Sangamon County, Illinois. The request seeks to halt enforcement while their underlying constitutional challenge moves through the courts.
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed the tax into law in June as part of the state’s fiscal year 2027 budget. The statute classifies the charge as a “privilege tax” tied to digital-asset transaction volume rather than a tax on gains or income.
The court fight places Illinois at the center of an emerging policy dispute over whether states can apply transaction-based taxes to cryptocurrency activity without conflicting with federal protections for interstate and online commerce.
Trade groups seek freeze before January 2027 start date
The Crypto Council for Innovation and Blockchain Association filed their lawsuit last month, claiming the tax conflicts with the U.S. Constitution, the Illinois Constitution, federal and state due-process protections, and the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act.
Their preliminary-injunction request is designed to prevent the tax from taking effect before the court decides those claims. Courts generally consider injunctions when plaintiffs argue they could face harm that would be difficult to remedy after a law is enforced.
The groups contend that Illinois has singled out cryptocurrency transactions for a tax structure not imposed in the same way on other forms of digital financial activity. According to the complaint, the levy would apply to the value of qualifying transactions rather than the profitability of a trade or the income earned by a person or company.
That distinction could create tax exposure even where a transaction produces no gain. A tax tied to volume can also affect activity such as moving assets between wallets, depending on how Illinois authorities interpret and administer the statute.
The law targets financial platforms that generate more than $100,000 in revenue from Illinois users, according to the state’s legislative materials cited in the challenge. State projections estimate the measure would raise $60 million in annual revenue.
Illinois faces a second challenge to the digital-asset tax
The Digital Chamber, another cryptocurrency industry organization, filed a similar lawsuit against Illinois officials days before the Crypto Council for Innovation and Blockchain Association submitted their original complaint.
Both cases describe Illinois as the first U.S. state to adopt a tax specifically aimed at cryptocurrency transaction activity in this form. The parallel legal actions increase the chances that the state’s policy will receive an early and detailed judicial review before collections begin.
Illinois has described the charge as a privilege tax, a designation generally used for taxes imposed on the exercise of a state-granted right or the conduct of certain activities. The industry groups’ cases dispute whether the state can use that framework for digital-asset transactions, particularly where activity may involve networks, counterparties, and service providers outside Illinois.
The federal Internet Tax Freedom Act, cited in the lawsuit, has historically restricted discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce. The plaintiffs are using it to argue that Illinois cannot impose a targeted tax burden on transactions conducted through digital-asset systems.
The constitutional arguments also raise questions about interstate commerce and due process. Cryptocurrency platforms may serve users across multiple states and process transactions through decentralized networks, making the location of a transaction less clear-cut than the location of a conventional retail sale.
A volume-based charge could reshape platform decisions
If the tax survives the court challenges, platforms covered by the $100,000 Illinois revenue threshold would need to determine which activity falls within the state’s rules and how to calculate the taxable value of each transaction.
That administrative burden could extend beyond collecting the 0.2% charge itself. Platforms may need systems to identify Illinois-linked activity, retain transaction records, calculate tax liabilities, and address transactions involving self-custodied wallets.
For users, the immediate concern is whether transfers between personal wallets will be included in the taxable transaction base. The supplied court challenge characterizes the law as potentially reaching movements of digital assets even where a holder is not buying, selling, or converting an asset. Illinois regulators have not been cited in the materials as providing final operational guidance on that point.
The dispute therefore reaches beyond the tax rate. A 0.2% fee may appear small when applied to a single transaction, but a volume-based model could accumulate costs for users or businesses that regularly rebalance holdings, move collateral, settle payments, or transfer assets for custody purposes.
Industry groups are likely to frame those effects as a deterrent to keeping cryptocurrency-related operations in Illinois. The state, meanwhile, has positioned the levy as a source of recurring public revenue, with a projected $60 million each year.
Illinois also faces a prediction-market lawsuit
The digital-asset tax litigation is separate from another legal clash involving Illinois rules for event-contract platforms.
Kalshi has sued Illinois officials over a law that took effect on July 1 and bans sports event contracts. Kalshi’s lawsuit argues that the state requirement conflicts with federal law by effectively requiring state licensing for products it considers federally regulated.
Sports event contracts allow users to take positions on the outcome of sporting events through a prediction-market format. State officials and gambling regulators in several jurisdictions have scrutinized such products as they have grown more visible alongside traditional betting markets.
In April, Pritzker issued an executive order barring Illinois state employees from placing bets on prediction-market platforms. The order cited concerns about insider trading and the use of nonpublic government information as event-based contracts expanded.
The order and the Kalshi case involve a different area of law from the cryptocurrency tax challenge, but both disputes test how Illinois intends to regulate newer forms of online financial and wagering activity. The state is pursuing a more active role in both areas, while industry participants are turning to courts to contest the reach of those rules.
For the cryptocurrency tax, the immediate question is whether the Sangamon County court will allow Illinois to begin collecting the levy on Jan. 1, 2027, or pause the measure until the legal challenges are resolved.
Concerned about Illinois’ crypto tax? Deepen your understanding of regulation with this in-depth guide.
Disclaimer: The content on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not represent the views or financial advice of Toobit. We make no guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of this information and shall not be held liable for any errors, omissions, or outcomes resulting from its use. Investing in digital assets involves risk; users should independently evaluate their financial situation and the risks involved. For further details, please consult our Terms of Service and Risk Disclosure.
