Gabe Whisnant | February 20, 2026
(Newsweek)
Victor Schwartz, a New York wine importer, was a lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court case that struck down President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs, delivering a major legal setback to one of the president’s signature economic policies.
The 6‑3 ruling found that Trump lacked the authority to impose broad import taxes under an emergency powers law, siding with small businesses that argued the tariffs were illegal and economically harmful. The decision marked a rare rebuke of Trump by a court reshaped by his own judicial appointments and immediately upended a central pillar of his economic agenda.
The case elevated Schwartz into an unexpected national spotlight, turning a small‑business owner into the face of a successful legal challenge against the White House.
“It just makes you so proud to be an American and to know that our system functions like this,” Schwartz told ABC News. “That this very small business in New York City can challenge something because it is just so wrong … that we can go to the biggest, the highest court in the land, and because we were right, we can win.”
Victor Schwartz’s Legal Triumph Over Donald Trump
Schwartz is the founder of VOS Selections, a New York‑based importer that brings wines and spirits from small producers around the world to U.S. restaurants and retailers. Like many import‑dependent businesses, VOS Selections was directly affected when Trump imposed sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs on nearly every U.S. trading partner, requiring companies to pay steep duties before their products could be sold.
“A very important thing to realize in running any business, certainly a small business, is the impact on cash flow,” he told Fox News. “When you have to pay those tariffs up front before you have sold a single bottle of wine, that’s a major impact … cash flow is the lifeblood of a company.”
Schwartz and other business owners argued that the tariffs created unpredictable costs that threatened the survival of smaller firms with limited cash flow. Rather than focusing on the economic wisdom of the policy, Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, centered on legality, contending that the emergency powers law Trump relied on does not authorize the president to impose taxes — a power the Constitution assigns to Congress.
Lower courts agreed with that argument, setting the stage for the Supreme Court fight. In its ruling, the high court concluded that Trump overstepped his authority, striking down much of the tariff framework while leaving in place duties imposed under other laws.
“The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch,” Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.
Roberts was joined by fellow conservatives Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, both nominated to the bench by Trump. All three liberal justices also joined the majority. Conservative Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Neal Katyal, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told MSNOW, “I was able to go to court – the son of immigrants – and say on behalf of American small businesses, ‘Hey, this president is acting illegally.’ I was able to present my case, have them ask really hard questions, and at the end of it they voted and we won. That is something extraordinary about this country.”
“If I could pull a metaphor from the Olympics that we’re all watching now, I imagine it’s like winning a gold medal,” Schwartz told ABC News.
Learning Resources, an Illinois‑based educational toy company, was the other lead plaintiff in the case, arguing in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that Trump’s emergency‑based tariffs unlawfully imposed new taxes that disrupted its supply chain and sharply raised costs. The company, which imports learning materials from overseas manufacturers, also challenged the tariffs on similar constitutional grounds.
What Happens Next
At the same time, Schwartz and other importers cautioned that the decision does not bring immediate relief. The Supreme Court did not address whether companies could recover billions of dollars already paid under the tariffs, leaving that question to be resolved in lower courts. After the ruling, Trump pledged Friday to impose a new global 10 percent tariff under a law that’s restricted to 150 days.
Still, the ruling represents a defining moment for Schwartz and other plaintiffs, underscoring how a dispute rooted in the day‑to‑day realities of small businesses can reshape national economic policy and reaffirm constitutional limits on presidential power.
“There’s too many unknowns about what the next steps are. There will be next steps,” Schwartz told ABC News. “Certainly, the administration is going to impose new tariffs. I’m thinking we’ll have to see what that looks like.”
To read this article on Newsweek, click here.
To learn more about our landmark victory in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., click here.