Sara Albrecht voted for Trump three times. Then she took on his tariffs

Liberty Justice Center, the conservative law firm that took on Trump and won Sun 19 Jul 2026 at 5:10am When the Liberty Justice Center decided to fight Donald Trump's self-dubbed "liberation day" tariffs, the law firm's chairperson, Sara Albrecht, was acutely conscious of possible "retaliation" from a Republican president who takes matters "personally". Ms Albrecht had herself voted for Trump three times. “We're known as a conservative firm," she told ABC News. "Taking on a conservative president is not something we decided to do lightly." The case would take the American firm all the way to its nation's highest court, and see it face desertion from donors and beg businesses to help. "Finding plaintiffs was the hardest thing to do because President Trump has been known to take things very personally," Ms Albrecht said. "There was always a threat of retaliation." Why was the case important? Ms Albrecht said the firm had been bracing for the president to bring in sweeping global tariffs. But on April 2, 2025, coincidentally all together at a staff retreat, they were still shocked he had done it. "We were like, 'Wow, it's really happening'," she recalled. Armed with a gigantic board, Mr Trump sent global markets and importers into a tailspin by putting tariffs on virtually every country. "My fellow Americans, this is liberation day," he now famously quipped. Countries received varying rates of import taxes, seemingly based on a mathematical equation rooted in the size of the US trade deficit with them. Most nations, including Australia, got a flat rate of 10 per cent slapped onto any of their goods going into the US. Yet other nations facing the ire of the president, like China, faced far higher rates. "It didn't seem to make any sense," Ms Albrecht said. Ms Albrecht, who owns a business herself and previously worked as a clothing importer, recognised the difficulty upheaval would bring to importers. The firm hustled to find plaintiffs willing to go public with their concerns. "It was a lot of cold calling on social media," she said. "It was just talking to people and making sure they understood what they were signing up for because a lawsuit is hard enough in just a normal circumstance. "But when you're suing the president of the United States, it has a whole other list of complications that come with it." Those who took the chance included a wine importer who had his import costs suddenly surge, but was unable to pass on these higher costs immediately because of price control rules in New York. "So he was a lot of times losing money on every single bottle that he sold because he couldn't change it," Ms Albrecht said. Then there was the manufacturer that had just locked in buying an important piece of machinery after being on a waitlist for years. Now it was going to cost far more to import, pushing the business owner to make tough decisions. "Does he get back in the queue and wait another five, six, seven years?" Ms Albrecht said. "Does he mortgage his house? Does he not take a pay-check?" Halfway across the world, Australian exporters were also having to make tough decisions. Tom Wilson had only just set up a local distribution hub to sell his clothing brand into the US when Mr Trump introduced the worldwide tariffs. His firm had a shipment on the water, and he had to use up Nashie's last available funds to pay the higher import duties. "It is stomach-curdling, the stress that you get from it,"Mr Wilson said. From the outset, Mr Wilson was aware of a legal challenge being brought by the Liberty Justice Center, which filed its case quickly in mid-April. Yet he did not get his hopes up. "We just thought, the law says one thing, but Trump says another and probably what Trump says will happen," Mr Wilson said. Loading...How the law firm fought its case The Liberty Justice Center's case centred around the president's use of a decades-old law, known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), to enact the sweeping tariffs. Ms Albrecht said the centre's lawyers believed the American constitution did not give a president the right to enact IEEPA in this manner. Yet they also felt the pressure about going to court with this argument. "The courts could rule differently or have a different interpretation," she said. "So it was a lot of sleepless nights for everybody here." After a string of appeals, the US Supreme Court panel majority ruled with the Liberty Justice Center and its plaintiffs in February this year. "The president asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope," Chief Justice John Roberts Jr wrote. "In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorisation to exercise it." Ms Albrecht describes February 20 as "a great day". "It really wasn't about the presidency, or it wasn't about the president," she said. "It was about the presidency and the separation of powers." Ms Albrecht said she especially enjoyed the "symmetry" of the ruling, knowing that this year marks the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence by 56 men, many of them merchants, business owners and importers upset by British taxes. "It is extremely important that we reaffirm these values that the country was founded on," she said. Clearly, the president thought differently. "The Supreme Court's ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing, and I'm ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what's right for our country," he said after the ruling. "Foreign countries that have been ripping us off for years are ecstatic. They're so happy. And they're dancing in the streets, but they won't be dancing for long, that I can assure you." Will there be more rulings? Trade experts closely followed the twists and turns of the IEEPA challenge. "I felt the decision could have gone either way, to be honest," QUT trade expert Felicity Deane told ABC News. "I think it was the right decision when you have a look at the actual law itself. "If Trump is the sort of person to go and ask permission of Congress, they may very well have given him permission to do all these things, but of course he's not that sort of personality." Professor Deane has also watched the nuances of tariff refunds, now that the IEEPA-implemented ones have been deemed unlawful. Unscrambling the egg has been a huge task for US authorities, with customs receiving tens of millions of claims after the Supreme Court ruling and having to process the biggest single issuance in its history. Overall, $US80 billion ($115 billion) in tariffs has been refunded by the US since May, plus interest at a rate of up to 7 per cent, analysis by Oxford Economics has estimated. The same amount again is expected to be refunded in the next year, posing a huge liability for the United States government and widening an already cavernous budget deficit. The refund process has not been without its challenges for exporters, with many who sent goods into the states using postal networks currently unable to apply. "I will celebrate when everybody gets their money back," Ms Albrecht said. Ms Albrecht also noted the "controversy" over where the refunded money goes, with some businesses getting refunded tariff bills when they had passed this cost onto customers through higher prices. "Companies should do the right thing, and the right thing is something different for every business," she said. "I had some companies that made it a point not to pass on any of the costs. They absorbed it. They worked with their suppliers." Tom Wilson said Nashie absorbed as much of the higher tariffs as possible without jacking prices for American customers or going broke themselves. Two months after lodging, the Australian brand got its tariff refund this month, a six-figure sum including 6 per cent interest. "It was disbelief," Mr Wilson said. He has personally thanked the Liberty Justice Center for taking on the fight on behalf of "the little guys". "It's really important for someone to stand up, in a David and Goliath situation with the sling, and say: 'hey, we're going to stop this',"he said. The case has not come without consequence for the not-for-profit law firm. It spent $US3.5 million ($5 million) fighting the case and has struggled with spooked donors. While Ms Albrecht has not personally received the infamous angry call from Mr Trump, she said his voters have made their sentiments known. "I have received many calls from his supporters shouting at me and threatening me, and some of it gets pretty violent," she said. "I'm not going to lie. It's a little unnerving, but I would do it all over again." And the firm is doing just that — now challenging the legality of a second round of tariffs implemented by Mr Trump as soon as the IEEPA ones were shut down. "That afternoon, in the middle of an interview I was doing on BBC, he announced the Section 122 tariffs," Ms Albrecht said. "So our victory was five hours old." ABC News asked the White House if Mr Trump regretted enacting IEEPA or if he expected to win the fresh Section 122 tariff challenge brought by the Liberty Justice Center. "Here are the actual facts," spokesperson Kush Desai replied. Mr Desai then maintained Mr Trump had "skilfully" used tariffs to renegotiate trade deals, stop wars and secure investment in American manufacturing. As many of the president's opponents have learnt, an apparent victory often only leads to the next fight.