As much of corporate America remained quiet, a small wine importer put his livelihood on the line to take on Trump’s tariffs. That contrast became one of the most striking features of a legal battle that ultimately reached the highest court in the country — and reshaped the national conversation about executive power and trade policy.
Silence in the Boardroom, Action in a Small Office
When Donald Trump announced plans last year to push the United States’ effective tariff rate to heights not seen since the 1930s, many executives in major corporations chose not to publicly object. For CEOs managing billions in annual revenue, speaking out against the administration’s economic agenda carried clear risks.
Opposing the president — particularly on trade, one of his signature policy arenas — could invite retaliation, regulatory scrutiny, or political backlash. For many companies, staying quiet felt safer than taking a stand.
But while multinational corporations hesitated, one small-business owner in New York decided he couldn’t afford silence.
The Reluctant Plaintiff
Victor Schwartz, founder of VOS Selections, a boutique wine-importing company based in New York, found himself stepping into a role few business owners would willingly accept: lead plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging the president’s most sweeping tariffs.
At first, Schwartz had reservations. Joining the legal challenge was one thing; becoming its public face was another entirely. The spotlight meant scrutiny — and potentially hostility.
His path into the case began when a family connection introduced him to the Liberty Justice Center, a public-interest law firm preparing to challenge the administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The firm argued that the president’s invocation of emergency powers to impose broad tariffs exceeded constitutional limits.
After consulting dozens of small-business owners affected by the policy, the organization selected Schwartz as the lead plaintiff.
He accepted — believing someone had to.
With major corporations standing on the sidelines, Schwartz later described feeling like the “last line of defense” for small businesses like his own, which lacked the financial buffers of global conglomerates.
From Filing to the Supreme Court
On April 14, 2025, the Liberty Justice Center formally filed the case, titled VOS Selections, Inc. v. Trump. Over time, the lawsuit was consolidated with similar challenges brought by 12 states and by Learning Resources, an educational supply company.
The legal battle steadily escalated, culminating in a decisive ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States. On Friday, the Court determined that the administration’s sweeping emergency tariffs were unlawful.
For Schwartz, the ruling was both a personal and professional victory. But it did not come without consequences.
The Personal Cost of Public Defiance
Since stepping into the spotlight, Schwartz says he has faced a wave of backlash — including hostile messages via text and email. The criticism has been relentless enough that his office has taken extra precautions.
He describes the atmosphere as tense but manageable — aware that challenging a sitting president carries inherent risks.
The experience underscored what many executives had quietly calculated from the beginning: pushing back publicly could be costly.
‘We Can’t Just Raise Our Prices’
Schwartz’s company imports wines and spirits from 16 countries. In the beverage industry, margins are often tight, and price sensitivity among distributors and consumers is high.
Unlike global corporations that can absorb short-term cost increases or spread them across vast product lines, smaller importers operate with limited flexibility.
Schwartz says that since April alone, his company has paid at least six figures in tariffs. Reviewing pricing became a constant exercise. Each new policy announcement forced him to reexamine his entire catalog.
When the president unveiled the tariffs on April 2, 2025 — a day he labeled “Liberation Day” — the ripple effects were immediate. Inventory calculations, supplier negotiations, and pricing sheets all required revision.
“We can’t just pass it along,” Schwartz has explained in interviews. Large corporations might be able to write a check and wait out uncertainty. Small importers cannot.
Potential Refunds — and Lingering Questions
Following the Supreme Court’s decision, affected importers may now be entitled to significant refunds. Based on tariff revenue data from US Customs and Border Protection, the potential total could reach into the hundreds of billions of dollars.
However, the process for issuing refunds remains uncertain. Administrative steps, documentation requirements, and further legal clarifications could determine how quickly — and how fully — businesses are reimbursed.
And while this ruling blocks one pathway for emergency tariffs, it does not eliminate others.
On the same day as the Court’s ruling, President Trump signed a separate 10% global tariff under a different trade statute and signaled additional measures aimed at curbing imports.
Schwartz acknowledges the possibility of new trade restrictions but notes that alternative trade laws tend to include narrower scopes and defined time limits — making them less sweeping than the emergency action struck down by the Court.
Challenging the World’s Most Powerful Office
Going head-to-head with a sitting president is no small undertaking.
Schwartz was well aware of the stakes. Public criticism from the administration has previously targeted companies perceived as critical of tariff policies. Even industry giants have faced scrutiny.
For example, reports once suggested that Amazon planned to display how tariffs influenced product prices. After discussions between President Trump and Jeff Bezos, the company ultimately did not move forward with that initiative.
The episode highlighted the delicate balance corporations must strike when navigating political tensions.
For Schwartz, however, encouragement from small-business owners across the political spectrum provided reassurance. He was not alone — even if he was out front.
Others Join the Fight
Rick Woldenberg, CEO of Learning Resources, also joined the legal effort. Unlike Schwartz, Woldenberg reportedly covered his own legal expenses, which climbed into the seven figures.
For him, the calculation was straightforward: the tariffs represented a financial burden his company could not sustain.
Legal experts say many businesses hesitate to confront federal policy directly. Alan Morrison, who previously challenged blanket steel tariffs imposed during Trump’s first term, has noted that uncertainty and the possibility of selective exemptions can make companies feel vulnerable.
In this case, however, thousands of corporations — including retail giants — have reportedly filed claims to preserve eligibility for potential refunds. They may benefit from the precedent set by Schwartz and others without having taken on the public risk themselves.
Schwartz harbors no resentment.
Sometimes, he suggests, it only takes one spark to ignite broader action.
A Toast to Principle
Despite the stress and controversy, Schwartz says he feels pride in the outcome. The case, in his view, was never just about wine or balance sheets — it was about constitutional boundaries and the limits of executive authority.
To mark the victory, he plans to uncork a cherished bottle of Châteauneuf-du-Pape — a symbolic celebration befitting a wine importer who challenged Washington and prevailed.
His story serves as a reminder that even in moments when powerful institutions remain silent, individual voices can still shape national policy.
