Illinois Manufacturers Association Submits Letter to Governor Encouraging Him to Veto SB 328
In the final days of the legislative session, at the urging of the trial bar, the Illinois General Assembly passed SB 328 (Harmon-D/Hoffman-D), which will fundamentally alter the state’s jurisdictional rules and expose companies to broader legal liability simply for registering to do business in Illinois.
Under existing law, a company must maintain substantial and relevant connections to Illinois in order to be subject to litigation in the state for matters arising elsewhere. SB 328, however, would significantly lower this threshold. If enacted, the bill would establish that a company’s act of registering to do business in Illinois constitutes automatic consent to general jurisdiction. This would grant Illinois courts the authority to hear any lawsuit against that company, regardless of whether the underlying dispute is connected to Illinois. In effect, an out-of-state business registered to operate in Illinois could be compelled to defend a legal action in Illinois courts—even if the events in question occurred entirely in another state.
The IMA led the opposition to SB 328 throughout its rapid advancement in the legislature. As the sole business organization to testify against the bill, the IMA strongly opposed the legislation, warning of its harmful impact on companies considering operations in Illinois. Following the bill’s passage, the IMA submitted a formal letter to Governor Pritzker urging a veto. Please see the letter below:
June 8, 2025
Honorable JB Pritzker Governor
State of Illinois 207 State Capitol
Springfield IL 62706 Dear Governor Pritzker:
On behalf of the Illinois Manufacturers’ Association and our nearly 4,000 member companies and facilities across the state, I respectfully request a veto of SB 328. This legislation, introduced and rushed through the legislature in the final two days of the spring legislative session at the behest of trial lawyers, will have a negative impact on business attraction efforts and economic development while further burdening our already underfunded and overburdened court system.
If enacted into law, Illinois would be one of very few states in the nation with a “general jurisdiction” law meaning that lawsuits could be brought in the state even if the facility, impacted individual, or alleged incident did not occur in Illinois. This broad expansion of forum shopping could occur solely because a business filed routine paperwork to do business in Illinois with the Illinois Secretary of State. Manufacturers, and other job creators, would be subject to the jurisdiction of courts in Illinois that have little to no relationship to the lawsuit and subject them to liability exposure greater than the appropriate state forums.
Illinois should not be America’s courtroom, nor should we encourage litigation tourism.
If Illinois joins Pennsylvania as the only state in the nation with a similar law, it will send a chilling impact to out-of-state companies who can be sued in Illinois solely because they want to do business in the state. Democrat Governor Kathy Hochul from New York recognized this when she not once – but twice -vetoed similar legislation noting the business impact in her second veto message (Veto #147, December 2023):
“I vetoed substantially similar legislation in 2021 due to concerns that the proposal would represent a massive expansion of New York’s laws governing general jurisdiction, likely deterring out-of-state companies from doing business in New York because it would require them to be subject to lawsuits in the State regardless of any connection to New York. The bill would cause uncertainty for those businesses and burden the judicial system.”
In addition to economic development, this will place a huge burden on Illinois courtrooms that are facing significant challenges from staffing to budgets to dockets. A recent study from the American Bar Association found that 68 percent of courts faced workforce shortages, 58 percent faced stagnated or decreased staffing budgets, 44 percent of courts have seen increased backlogs, and 45 percent are seeing increasing caseloads.
This fact was echoed by Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor in oral arguments in the Supreme Court where she opined that few states would pass similar laws because those states would not want their
court systems to be crowded with cases with weak connections to those forums.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments about the Pennsylvania statute in the (Mallory v. Norfolk So. Railway Co.) and issued a split 5-4 decision written by Justice Neil Gorsuch in which the case was remanded to the First Judicial District. In their decision, they ruled solely on the “due process” clause but the “commerce clause” remains an open question. A dissenting opinion from Justice Alito noted that there is a “good prospect” that the Pennsylvania scheme violates the Commerce Clause by imposing “undue burdens” on interstate commerce by “requiring a foreign corporation… to defend itself with reference to all transactions,” including those with no connection to the forum.
As noted in the opinion, a general jurisdiction statute like SB 328 would likely be found unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause because it both discriminates against out-of-state companies and imposes a significant burden on interstate commerce that outweighs any public interest in adjudicating claims with no connection to Illinois.
The bill is also likely to face a Due Process Clause challenge by businesses with only minor operations in Illinois. The Mallory case involved a large corporation with “extensive operations” in Pennsylvania while this bill impacts nearly all businesses who would have a much stronger argument that they cannot be subjected to general jurisdiction for the privilege of conducting only a small amount of business in Illinois.
There is no reason to rush and enact this law in Illinois that will harm efforts to grow the economy and burden our courts while the Pennsylvania case is subject to further proceedings, specifically to address the potential dormant Commerce Clause which “prohibits state laws that unduly restrict interstate commerce.”
In addition to the Illinois Manufacturers’ Association, this measure is opposed by nearly every leading business segment in the state including retailers, restaurants, railroads, truckers, energy, and more.
Illinois does not need another burden to overcome in attracting business. The IMA has worked closely with you and your Administration on a suite of tax incentives, site selection and vetted sites, the quantum campus, building supply chains, and changing the state’s narrative that Illinois is open for business. We respectfully encourage you to veto this bill.
Best,
Mark Denzler
President & CEO
