A small Florida business owner recently stepped into a high-stakes legal battle that could reshape U.S. trade policy. Janet Wilson, who runs Sunshine Imports in Tampa, filed a lawsuit challenging former President Trump’s authority to impose tariffs on Chinese goods without congressional approval. Her lawsuit has gained unexpected momentum with support from libertarian groups that typically align with conservative economic policies.
Wilson’s company, which imports decorative home goods, saw profits plummet when tariffs raised her costs by 25% in 2018. “I built this business from scratch after leaving my corporate job,” Wilson told reporters outside the courthouse. “These tariffs nearly destroyed everything I worked for.”
The case centers on a rarely challenged 1974 law that gives presidents broad authority to impose tariffs for national security reasons. Wilson’s attorneys argue Trump overstepped constitutional boundaries by citing Section 301 of the Trade Act as justification for what they describe as punitive economic measures against China.
The Manhattan Institute, a libertarian-leaning think tank, filed an amicus brief supporting Wilson. “Executive overreach in trade policy threatens free market principles regardless of which party controls the White House,” the brief states. Their involvement signals growing concern among traditional free-trade conservatives about expanding presidential powers over international commerce.
Economic experts remain divided on the impact of the tariffs. A University of Chicago study found that American consumers bore approximately 90% of tariff costs through higher prices. Meanwhile, the U.S. Trade Representative’s office maintains the tariffs were necessary to counter unfair Chinese trade practices that harm American businesses.
Wilson’s case has drawn attention from the Biden administration, which has kept many Trump-era tariffs in place while reviewing trade policy. Treasury Department data shows the U.S. collected over $78 billion in tariff revenue last year, with Chinese imports accounting for the largest share.
The lawsuit highlights the growing tensions between small business interests and broader geopolitical concerns. Jennifer Bradley, director of the Small Business Legal Coalition, points out that “when Washington talks about getting tough on China, it’s small business owners who often pay the price.”
Florida’s substantial import sector makes it particularly vulnerable to trade disruptions. The state’s ports processed over $57 billion in international goods last year, with Chinese products representing nearly 20% of that volume, according to state commerce department figures.
Constitutional scholars are watching the case closely. “This represents a rare challenge to the modern imperial presidency,” said Elizabeth Morrison, professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University. “Courts have historically given presidents wide latitude on trade, but this case could establish new boundaries.”
Wilson’s legal team has secured funding from the Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm that frequently challenges government overreach. Their involvement suggests this case may advance further than previous challenges to presidential tariff authority.
The lawsuit faces significant hurdles. Federal courts have generally deferred to the executive branch on matters of international trade, viewing them as extensions of foreign policy powers. The Supreme Court’s recent decisions have reinforced this tendency, with justices reluctant to intervene in what they consider political questions.
Business groups across Florida are closely monitoring the outcome. The state’s Chamber of Commerce reports that over 60,000 small businesses in Florida engage in international trade, with many dependent on predictable import costs for survival.
Wilson remains determined despite the odds. “I’m not just fighting for my business,” she explained. “I’m fighting for every small company that doesn’t have the resources to challenge policies made by people who’ve never had to meet a payroll.”
The case also reflects shifting political alignments on trade. Traditional Republican business supporters increasingly find themselves at odds with the party’s populist wing on tariff policies. Meanwhile, some progressive Democrats have embraced targeted tariffs as tools for environmental and labor standards enforcement.
Financial markets have reacted to the lawsuit with cautious interest. The uncertainty surrounding trade policy continues to influence investment decisions,
