FOLLOW US

In early 2025, the Liberty Justice Center reached out to Victor Schwartz, a New York City wine importer, with an extraordinary request: would he take on President Donald Trump in court over his sweeping tariffs? The proposition was anything but simple. The administration had already frozen funding for universities, pressured some of the nation’s most influential law firms, and made it clear that challenging the president came at a cost.

Schwartz took time to weigh the risks. He called his family, consulted lawyers he trusted, and even spoke with someone at the attorney general’s office. His mind circled around two questions: “Is this very risky? And should I do it?”

Both answers, he eventually concluded, were “yes.”

“I just felt like I had to do it,” Schwartz said. “It was maybe the most important thing I could possibly do.”

From Small Business to Supreme Court

One year later, Schwartz stands among a select group of small business owners who can say they took the president to the Supreme Court of the United States — and won. In a 6–3 ruling, the Court struck down Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose broad tariffs, calling the action unconstitutional. The decision sent shockwaves from Wall Street to the White House.

The government had collected roughly $175 billion in tariffs under that authority, according to estimates. Businesses and importers are now pressing for refunds. But the victory has limits: the Court did not order restitution or set a refund process.

The Liberty Justice Center has filed motions in both the Federal Circuit and the Court of International Trade to get the reimbursement process underway, but there’s no clear timeline. Meanwhile, Trump has implemented a new set of tariffs under a different legal authority.

“The reality is we’re basically in the same place in terms of running the business every day,” Schwartz said. Still, he considers the victory monumental. “Every journey begins with the first step. That first step can be the hardest.”

Tariff Turmoil

Schwartz founded VOS Selections nearly 40 years ago, driven by a simple idea: import wines and spirits from overlooked regions and family-run vineyards. Today, the company employs around 20 people and works with producers in 16 countries across five continents.

Despite the romantic notion of vineyard tours and tastings, Schwartz says the work is far from glamorous. “I get up, put on a clean shirt, have some breakfast champagne… no. It’s warehouse boxes, accounts receivable, inventory, management headaches, regulatory compliance. It’s like any other business,” he said.

The alcohol import industry is heavily regulated, with federal and state licensing, pricing rules, and complex tax obligations. For decades, the regulatory environment was predictable — until the Trump tariffs disrupted everything.

VOS Selections weathered the first round of tariffs in 2019, which were limited and manageable. But the second wave, paired with the possibility of Trump winning a second term, threw the industry into disarray. Blanket levies shifted unpredictably, applied to certain countries and then removed, leaving importers scrambling.

The Manhattan Chamber of Commerce estimated that small businesses in the New York City area absorbed roughly $4.5 billion annually in extra tariff costs, and around 5,000 businesses closed in the second quarter of 2025 alone.

For Schwartz, tariffs and a falling dollar combined to increase costs by nearly 30%. He passed only 7–8% of that onto customers, cutting inventory and delaying new supplier relationships to cover the rest. “Business should expand, but it’s been contracting,” he said.

Taking the Case

The legal challenge began over brunch with a visiting relative whose former law professor was mounting a lawsuit against the tariffs. Within a week, Schwartz was in touch with the Liberty Justice Center, which asked him to serve as lead plaintiff.

Sara Albrecht, who runs the center, said Schwartz’s business was strategically ideal: he imports from enough countries that the case would retain legal standing even if tariffs were lifted for one nation, and his circumstances made the constitutional argument clear. “The administration promised tariffs would bring manufacturing back to the U.S.,” she said. “How do you manufacture Spanish wine in the United States? You can’t.”

The case moved rapidly through the Court of International Trade and the Federal Circuit, reaching the Supreme Court on an expedited timeline. Schwartz attended all hearings, including the oral arguments in the Court chamber, noting the gravity of the courtroom’s architecture and procedure.

When the ruling was finally announced on Feb. 20, Schwartz was at home with his daughter, Chloe, on a Zoom call with the legal team. As Chief Justice Roberts read the opinion, they leaned in, parsing every word before realizing they had won. Schwartz celebrated despite a scheduled hip replacement. The following night, he marked the victory with his family and a long-held bottle of Domaine du Banneret Châteauneuf-du-Pape.

What the Ruling Means — and Doesn’t

While the Court’s decision was sweeping, confusion remains. Businesses are scrambling to determine eligibility for refunds, required documentation, and timelines. The Court of International Trade, which typically handles 50–60 tariff cases a year, has received more than 900 since the ruling.

The Trump administration’s replacement tariffs — Section 122 — are more predictable and include procedures for compliance, but they still represent a 15% cost increase and are set to expire after 150 days unless Congress intervenes.

Trump has indicated that disputes over refunds may take years to resolve, and the Liberty Justice Center has filed motions seeking an expedited process.

Schwartz’s phone has been ringing constantly, from media outlets to supporters. His daughter Chloe wrote that he “rose to the occasion when so many more powerful people were intimidated by the administration.”

Albrecht notes that larger corporations remain quiet while lining up for potential refunds. She likens the small-business plaintiffs to the Founding Fathers — everyday businesspeople standing up for constitutional principles.

Schwartz, meanwhile, keeps a grounded perspective. The victory is significant, he said, but it is just the beginning.

“We’ve shown that there are limits,” he said. “The president isn’t a king. He doesn’t have absolute authority.”