(Inc.)—The first court case seeking to overturn President Donald Trump’s policy of sweeping tariffs is underway, and it wasn’t filed by progressive opponents of the White House or a Fortune 500 company commanding a small army of corporate lawyers. Instead, it is spearheaded by a 42-year-old entrepreneur and former Trump voter in Florida, who fears the levies on imports may ruin her nine-employee small business.
The New York-based U.S. Court of International Trade heard opening arguments this month in V.O.S. Selections v. Trump. The suit argues the basis upon which Trump declared the majority of his steepest tariffs is illegal, and represents a constitutional violation of presidential powers. The case arose from the reaction last March of Emily Ley—founder and CEO of planner and organizational supply company Simplify—when she pivoted from her usual Instagram product promotion to an entirely different kind of messaging. That involved the usually cheerful entrepreneur and mother of three telling customers what the tariffs Trump imposed do to small companies like hers that rely on foreign suppliers.
“Tariffs are killing businesses,” Ley wrote beside text images noting that Simplify had paid $1.7 million in duties on supplies from China since 2017, and expected to pay $350,000 more in 2025 on tariff rates that at that time were still 45 percent. “I cannot be quiet about this anymore.”
Little did Ley know while writing that, the very next month, Trump would announce his “reciprocal tariffs” on imports from virtually all countries. That included increasing duties on Chinese products like those Simplify uses to a whopping 145 percent.
Ley is not the only founder waging a fight. The lawsuit also involves four other small Florida businesses owners who joined her case. And that litigation is now paired with an additional complaint filed by several other U.S. entrepreneurs represented by the public interest law firm Liberty Justice Center.
Much like the New Civil Liberties Alliance—whose backers include deeply conservative business leaders including industrialist Charles Koch and Federalist Society chairman Leonard Leo—Liberty Justice Center has a history of taking on what it considers abusive government overreach.
Probably even more annoying to Trump officials than those GOP bona fides are both organizations’ track records of winning cases against federal regulations and rule-making that haven’t been passed by Congress. But in seeking to extend that streak, they’re being very careful about the kind of tariffs they’re gunning for, and the arguments they’re using in court.
They’ve avoided citing duties imposed on Canada, Mexico, and China seeking to force sterner policing against fentanyl trafficking. Instead, the case focuses on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) that Trump invoked on April 2 to declare reciprocal tariffs on most U.S. trading partners. Liberty Justice Center senior counsel Jeffrey Schwab argues using the IEEPA to justify and enforce the sweeping import levies represents a violation of presidential authority.
“The Constitution gives Congress the power to set tariffs,” Schwab said, explaining the focus of the case before the U.S. Court of International Trade. “Congress is allowed to delegate that power, but it can’t just entirely delegate all of the power without any kind of checks or limitations.”
That isn’t the only argument attorneys representing Ley and her fellow plaintiffs are making to the panel of three judges, who were appointed by Ronald Reagan, Barak Obama, and Trump, respectively. The anti-tariff lawyers also stress that repeated shifts on both the timing and rate of import duties have prevented companies—particularly budget-strapped small business owners—from being able to make plans to limit their bottom line impact.
That apparent lack of regard for entrepreneurs by a president who staked his political credibility on his purported success in business is one of the things that has most infuriated Lee—who voted for Trump in 2016 before increasingly souring on his policies and attitude since.
“When you listen to the president talk about it, it’s like we don’t exist,” Ley told the Washington Post. “It’s impacting real families, real American jobs, real American livelihoods, real American customers—but he won’t acknowledge it…. I feel like we’re red and black checker pieces in a cheap checkers game when it could be chess. I don’t feel like we’re part of some sort of really forward-thinking strategy.”
She isn’t alone. Awaiting a decision from the U.S. Court of International Trade—and the appeals Ley’s lawyers have promised all the way up to the Supreme Court if necessary—other commentators from varied political and business backgrounds are voicing their support of her.
“All you need to do is hire… people in the US for three times the wage plus all the other government fees required to do business and jack your retail price ten times,” mocked h937hfiu3hrhv9 in responding to a Reddit thread on the Post’s profile of Ley. “Piece of cake. /s. Brought to you by the long hand of the small government people.”
“I work at a floral import business and I can tell you that neither we nor any of our suppliers have margins big enough to be able to eat any loss here,” a contributor going by Deinosoar said in another Reddit thread on Trump’s tariffs. “If we don’t pass the costs on we lose money with everything we sell, and that would kind of defeat the purpose of being in business.”
“It’s almost as if… all the obvious and simplistic effects that reasonable people laid out about tariffs are actually happening,” concurred Stranger-Sun. “Who would have thought?”
Author: Bruce Crumley