The Business of Watch [036] Collective Horology CEO Asher Rapkin And Liberty Justice Center Chairman and CEO Sara Albrecht On Suing Trump Over Tariffs¶
Published on Wed, 5 Aug 2026 15:00:00 +0000
Why the independent watch retailer chose to sue the President and how the Liberty Justice Center drove the Supreme Court to rule Trump's initial tariffs illegal.
Synopsis¶
In this episode of Business of Watches, host Andy discusses the legal challenge against U.S. tariffs on Swiss watches with Asher Rapkin, CEO and co-founder of Collective Horology, and Sarah Albrecht, CEO and Chairman of the Liberty Justice Center. Collective Horology, a retailer specializing in independent watchmakers, has joined a lawsuit against President Trump and the U.S. Trade Representative over what they argue are illegally applied tariffs that have cost the small business over $164,000.
Asher describes how multiple rounds of tariffs—ranging from 10% to 39%—have created severe financial uncertainty for his self-funded business and the independent watchmaking industry. He argues these tariffs don't protect any meaningful American watchmaking industry and actually harm emerging American watchmakers who rely on Swiss supply chains. Sarah explains the Liberty Justice Center's previous success in striking down IIPA tariffs at the Supreme Court and their current challenge to Section 301 tariffs, which they argue are being misapplied as a pretext to replace previously defeated tariffs rather than address legitimate forced labor concerns. The lawsuit seeks class certification to ensure any victory benefits all affected businesses, with the ultimate goal of securing refunds and preventing future arbitrary tariff implementations that circumvent proper congressional authority.
Links¶
Transcript¶
| Speaker | |
|---|---|
| Andy (Host) | Welcome to the Business of Watches, the Hodinkee podcast, where we talk to the players and the executives and go behind the scenes to see what's making pace in the watch industry. Today we are telling a very American story and it's about terrorists. I am joined by Ash Rapkin, who is the CEO and co-founder of Collective Horology, as well as Sarah Albrecht, who is the CEO and chairman of the Liberty Justice Center, and she's in Chicago. Asher, you are in California. Welcome to the business of watches. |
| Sarah Albrecht | Thank you, Andy. Hi Andy. Asher, |
| Andy (Host) | we are here because Collective, which is a retailer of uh many of the well known independent brands that are here in Switzerland and elsewhere, you have joined a lawsuit or you are part of a lawsuit against uh among others President Donald Trump, the US trade representative, Jameson Greer, and various other people in the administration and entities. And this is regarding tariffs. Now tariffs have been an issue for the watch industry, I guess, since April 2025. We are on, I think, our third round of different terrace. Asher, tell me why now collective horology has decided to take this action. |
| Asher Rapkin | Sure. and thank you for your attention on this. I know it's something that uh is topical, but it also means a great deal to to us as an industry, but but me personally. Look, uh I I got into this as did my partner Gabe fundamentally because we are massive supporters of and lovers of watchmaking. Um I I know you've you've met us and seen us talk about this in the past. So that's something that's you know, the a critical motivator here. But fundamentally, we're also entrepreneurs. And I I think one of the lessons that um I've learned about being an entrepreneur is uh it's often best that you go into it not knowing what you're getting into because there's so much that will come at you that you don't know about or can you know can't expect. And um oftentimes we think about that in terms of building a business normally, you know, what's involved in in building capital or, you know, building a boutique or or any of the things that go into just selling watches. But uh this was a new one for us last year when we saw uh tariffs come and hit the industry as hard as they did. And I remember if you recall, this happened uh the the so-called Liberation Day tariffs happened in the middle of Watch and Wonders. I |
| Andy (Host) | remember it well. And it landed like a lead balloon. |
| Asher Rapkin | You know, I mean, people were walking around that uh that show jubilant one day and absolutely catatonic and stunned the next. And we all were were wondering what on earth we were going to do. And as an industry, you know, I I was really proud of us. we somehow figured it out um in that first range of tariffs. And then in the summer of last year, when uh the thirty-nine percent tariff hit, again, we all started to ask ourselves these these real questions of can we survive this? And I just want to put that into context. I mean, we're what we're a watchmaking industry. We've survived for hundreds of years. And yet now, based on an action from one government in the world, we were all asking if we could possibly survive. And it was brutal. And we did, and we have. But what we've seen is that even though those initial tariffs were proven to be illegal, uh, in large part due to the work of Sarah and her team, actually entirely really due to the work of Sarah and her team. Well, they immediately came with another range of tariffs. Right. And now yet again. And I think for us, we just have had enough. We've had enough of this. And we believe profoundly in the power of things like tariffs. We see them as a useful tool, but we believe they are being misapplied here. And we think it's unjust. And as a result, we have decided to step up and be a party to the suit. |
| Andy (Host) | And so n you know, the this round of tariffs is the one from which you've decided has been the catalyst for you to take action. Sarah, um talk to me about the Liberty Justice Center, what your role is in this legal action and what the legal basis is for your argument here to have the tariffs not be applied. Or if am i interpreting that correctly tell me |
| Sarah Albrecht | yeah i'll start at the beginning because we were the first to file a case against the illegal iba tariffs we filed that case april fourteenth that was the one that ultimately ended up at the supreme Court that struck down the AIPA tariffs. So that was our fight. It was a huge fight. And just to put it into context, we are a team of 12 attorneys spread out all across the U.S. We're a nonprofit. We, you know, fight constitutional injustices. And this was the biggest hill we've ever had to climb. And it's such a David and Goliath story, probably an overused uh term, but in this case, it is really the appropriate term. And we got into this fight because just like Asher said, tariffs do have a purpose, but when they're misapplied and the separation of powers gets blurry, then we felt we needed to step in. So we did, we struck them down, and then five hours later, after we won on February 20th, he announced the Section 122 TERS. And we had considered that he was probably going to do that. We weren't really sure if he was going to announce them immediately like he did. So we were ready. We stood back and thought institutionally, do we want to take on another terra fight? We're not trade attorneys, we're constitutional attorneys, but we felt like what what good is a constitutional win if he just does it again in a different form? So is it really a win? Kind of a philosophical question. And we decided, nope, we need to finish this job. And we wanted to see it through. So we filed on March 8th. That uh case was heard in April and we got our favorable decision from the Court of International Trade in May. And then we thought, okay, now we're done. But we knew those tariffs were going to run off. And one of the reasons we wanted to file on that case was it was a section that allowed terrorist for 150 days, which got you to July 24th, which is kind of where we find ourselves now. |
| Andy (Host) | And that was the day I believe you filed this. Correct. Yeah. |
| Sarah Albrecht | Yes. We wanted to make a point. And one of our concerns was the administration kind of resetting 122 and starting for another 150 days and you know, kind of continually doing that. We thought that could be an option. And then certainly we thought one of the other statutes he might try and use 338, 301, 232 in some form. So we weren't sure which direction he was going to go, but we kind of settled on he was probably going to do 301 because then he announced he was going to do 301 to replace the AIPA terrace, which brings us to why this is such an important issue. It is not about forced labor, which is reprehensible and you know, not justifiable in any way. It's just about replacing the tariffs that he lost on AIPA in a pretextual way, and it's not being appropriately applied. You know, this tariff applies to 85 countries, and those countries have different rules about forced labor and different requirements. And you can't tell me that 99.4% of the imports into the United States are, you know, in violation of forced labor statutes in their home country? It's just not possible. And he's also kind of reaffirmed that because I keep a list of every time the administration says something like we're just trying to replace the AIPA tariffs or the Section 122 tariffs. So that's kind of the core of our fight. It's not so much the constitutional issue that the AIPA was. It's more an administrative procedures act violation. Like this was not the proper way to do that. And this is not the intent of 301. 301 is supposed to be very targeted, very focused. So there's this mismatch between problem and remedy that we're dealing with here. And I'm hoping the court agrees with us. |
| Andy (Host) | Asher, this is a story about the watch industry. I mean you, are a watch dealer. You know, how have tariffs impacted, first of all, your business? And how do you know the idea of tariffs, which is about, you pres know,erving American industry, uh, American jobs, American skill and know-how. How does that apply to watches specifically, do we think? |
| Asher Rapkin | We are a and we've been very public and honest about this for years. Um, we don't have investors. We're self-funded. And uh my business partner, Gabe Riley and I quite literally poured our life savings into this business at great risk and peril, as any entrepreneur will tell you, to build this business. And we've built it one block at a time. And that's been very important to us so that we could maintain integrity and control over this business. And all sorts of uncertainty comes your way. But the significant amount of financial uncertainty created by this regime of tariffs has made it incredibly difficult for companies like ours to plan, to grow, to do all the things that I would argue we have worked hand over fist for years to accomplish and are being starved of those resources for no clear national interest that we can discern. And, you know, there's the literal cost of the tariff, you know, like it's more expensive for me to buy things now. But the tariffs, uh, at least on Switzerland, have also been extraordinarily irratic. You know, we've gone from thirty percent to ten percent to twelve percent to thirty nine percent to twelve point five percent. The numbers there are so dramatic, let alone the second and third order issues that have come out of this economically, like the depression of the US dollar against the Swiss franc. So when you look at all of those elements together, for us, uh for any other, you know, watch importer, whether they're huge, like like, you know, your parent company watches in Switzerland or ours or us as a smaller entity, like it is a meaningful bit of headwind that we have to address. Second, you know, uh when you look at independent watchmakers, independent watchmakers, some of these watches might be uh objectively or you know expensive. The absolute price might be expensive, but nobody's getting rich selling these and making these. Um, take it from me. And I, you know, we we do this because we we love it. And when you start tacking on these additional fees and costs, you put barriers in front of clients who want to invest in this art form and you make it harder for independent brands to grow. So it's a real issue for us as champions. of independence And as a final point, you know, look, I love American watchmaking. I've been a supporter of American watchmaking um since the day we opened our doors. One of the first brands we retailed was Jay and Shapiro. Right. And we we are we were his first American uh his first, not only American retailers, first retailer, period. You know, just on Monday, we released an episode of our podcast with uh Corell Bashand, who's the CEO of Barrel Hand, you know, uh, who is another incredible American watchmaker. We believe profoundly in the opportunity of the American watch industry, but it's a tiny little industry right now, and it is impossible to replace our business, not that we want to per se, but even if we did to replace our business with entirely American-made watches, because there just isn't an industry for it. And on top of that, if an American watchmaker wants to get started, they need the Swiss supply chain to do it, at least just to get started. Even Josh Shapiro, you know, his first watches used German movements. So what we're really doing here is we're making it harder for American businesses to actually develop an industry. We're making it harder for American businesses to actually grow and sell and and and succeed in the lane that they're in. And we're making it harder for our trading partners to do it too. So when you add all that up together, it's it's bad news. Aaron Powell |
| Andy (Host) | And how much do you I I'm I bet you know um how much you've paid in tariffs. I mean in the lawsuit um you talk about you know,, in the next few weeks having I think around sixty nine thousand dollars worth of um I guess that's wholesale price sort of stock coming in. And that that means you're on the hook for something like eighty two hundred uh dollars worth of uh tariff fees. I mean with all the rounds of of tariffs that we've had, what has that meant for the bottom line of your business? How much have you paid? |
| Asher Rapkin | Sure. So we've uh we paid uh over one hundred and sixty four thousand dollars in IEPA tariffs, which we are due refunds plus interest on, and we haven't gotten that. On top of that, you know, there's the tens of thousands of dollars. Uh we haven't added it all up yet, but um I'm sure we we will on um the Section 211s that uh were paid up until last Friday. And then of course um you know what was in the lawsuit uh regarding three oh ones, th that's just this week. That's just this week. So when you when you add all these things up, uh there's hundredss of thousand of dollars that we have lost use of at collective because of this. And um, you know, look, on the one hand, like we're lucky, you know, we were we were able to weather that, but that's not the kind of thing I want to be lucky about. So I I I am on the one hand, you know, appreciative that we run our business in a way that allows us to survive and grow still uh uh even facing this, but I should not have to fight this battle. This is not a thing in my mind that um I should be using my time uh and effort and energy on. I would far prefer to be talking to you about the watchmakers that I believe in and the you know the art form that I've invested my life in, not the finer points of of trade law. Trevor Burrus |
| Andy (Host) | We've seen various companies in various facets of the industry approach this challenge, this problem of tariffs in different ways. I mean, I guess last year we saw a very um high profile White House visit from the CEO of Rolex, Mr. Rupert, the chairman and majority owner of Richmond, one of the uh biggest watch uh Swiss watchmaking conglomerates in the world. And basically, you know, they I guess lobbied uh President Trump or at least had a business meeting with him laying out the facts and laying out the situation that Switzerland had been put in by the tariffs. You are taking legal action, I mean this is litigation. Why not simply lobby and and tell your case to the administration. |
| Asher Rapkin | I mean I'll let Sarah answer the why litigate, but I'll I'll give you the the personal experience of this. I mean look when when the when the IPA tariffs hit, I'll be honest with you, I felt very helpless. I mean, I struggled with it a lot. I lost a lot of sleep. My business partner and I asked, what what are we going to do? And it just felt like we were we were f free floating. So I, you know, I tried to anchor. So what did I do? I reached out to other small businesses in in my Southern California community. I joined my chamber of commerce, which I had never been a member of and tried to figure that out. I obsessively and um regularly called my local congressman Carbajal's office regularly. I called my senators' offices regularly. |
| Andy (Host) | You and I were talking a lot on text in terms of what was happening in Switzerland as well. |
| Asher Rapkin | Yeah, totally. And uh, you know, while I got uh I think a lot of empathy from my elected representatives, I there was essentially nothing but lip service there. And it became very apparent to me that the solution wasn't outside wasn't w nobody was gonna solve this for me except I guess uh liberty justice. But um n you know, uh essentially nobody was gonna fix it. So we had to figure that out. And um we wove through the obstacles that were in front of us, but given the opportunity to take actual action that, you know, could potentially result in a favorable outcome, which is litigation, ultimately at this point, fifteen, sixteen months later, felt like to us one hundred percent the right choice. I mean, Sarah, I I'd love to hear your point of view on that too, since you're the person who's actually brought this. |
| Sarah Albrecht | Yeah. I mean, even though we're a law firm, it's always kind of a last resort to have to file litigation. Like I would love it if lobbyists could actually get their job done. I'd actually love it even more if Congress would start doing their job because they could have stopped all of this at the beginning. They could have stopped it in the middle and they could stop it now. And they're choosing not to. I get it, it's a choice, but you know, at some point, you know, all of our voices need to be heard and the Chamber of Commerce across the country, they do great work for a number of different industries. But in this specific case, it's not going to be effective. You can have all the lobbyists go into the White House, you know, that you can find and I don't think anything's going to be heard. They are determined, they've made that very clear time and time again, no pun intended, but kind of that this is a revenue issue for them. It's not anything else. And it's not even about fair trade. Because if you look at the Swiss tariffs on US products, like that's not equitable. So |
| Andy (Host) | there was never reciprocal tariff. No. And so Sarah, tell me what is the pr legal procedure here? What happens next? And let's be explicit, let's be clear, what is the outcome and the remedy that you're hoping here for? I mean it's not only collective horology that's a plaintiff in this, there's a |
| Sarah Albrecht | Sure. So for the AIPA tariffs, we filed on behalf of five businesses. When it was um ultimately struck down, then the remedy applied to every business. So we're in court right now, finalizing the refunds. We've gotten 90 billion dollars paid back to small businesses, large businesses out of the 166 billion. I know Asher's still waiting for some of his refunds, but I'm confident he will have those. And then section 122, we're going to go through the same thing. Section 301, we did something a little different. So while we have two named plaintiffs, we also asked the court to recognize a class certification so that by default, the class that we chose to use is called a rule 23B2, which is an administrative class, which by default, then every business is eligible to be in that class. There's no opting in, there's no opting out. It just kind of covers it so that when and if we get to a refund stage, we won't have to worry about who's eligible and who's not. And so we're kind of in a class certification stage on the final set of IPA tariffs that the government is arguing about. This isn't a procedure that's normally used at the Court of International Trade. So these two separate cases, I think, will determine a path forward for all of this tariff situation that we're experiencing. So August 6th, we have a hearing on the AIPA class, and then our complaint addresses that and the court will address that when we get our court date. |
| Andy (Host) | And was it unusual for you to name the president himself and uh J. |
| Sarah Albrecht | In the first lawsuit, we did name the president as the primary uh defendant, mainly because it was a constitutional issue. Because Section 301 is actually a valid trade section and tariff section, we chose, and I think appropriately uh to name Jamison greer just because we also wanted to spread the uh litigation love around and so trump is still named in there but you know it's also not we don't want to make this is a political issue because it's not. It's you know, whether it's this president or the next president, they can't do this and they can't make up the rules for statutes that Congress laid out. Congress made it very clear what they wanted this statute to be used for. And so the president can't just arbitrarily change that. |
| Andy (Host) | I was just gonna add, I mean, separate from everything that that |
| Asher Rapkin | Sarah just said, you know, look, I part of the reason we also decided to join this, and I think, you know, because it's not it's it's not an easy decision, you know. the reason we decided to do this is we went back to like, well, what is even the purpose of collective in the first place? You know? And like the whole reason that we did this, the whole reason that we pivoted, you know, six years ago from just doing collaborative watches and the rest to retail was because we wanted to make independent watches more accessible than the United States. and the simple reality is that tariffs have made independent watches less accessible in the United States, full stop. And this is absolutely not in my business plan. Like this is not a thing we ever could have conceived would have happened. But at the same time, you know, Andy, you you know a lot of the people that we represent. You know that these are not gigantic corporations. These are people who are really operating be out of passion and not out of, you know, uh that they're they're not making huge profits, they're not, you know, rolling in in cash. They're doing it because they fundamentally love it. And the thing is, this isn't just an American problem because what's happening based on how America sits in the world economy, the choices that we make, of course, ripple across the rest of the world. And it's having implications on the entire supply chain for the Swiss watch industry, the entire, you know, correct me if I'm wrong if you think I'm mischaracterizing it, but the entire Swiss economy. and these are this is an economy that has literally not only supported an art form I believe in, but put food on my table. I mean like literally sustained my family. So I I think there's a lot more here that to look at and and it's easy sometimes to just say, uh, well, they don't want to pay extra taxes or like, ah then, you know, it's just really expensive. But there's a lot more to it. And, you know, commerce and trade and society and art and these things are all deeply intertwined. And we can't, you know, we can't tease them apart. We have to look at them as you know one gigantic uh entity that that is working together. And if we do, I think it becomes a lot clearer why, as Sarah pointed out, this isn't a political thing. This is a this is a an issue that impacts everyone, regardless of where they may sit socially or politically or whatever. This impacts us all, and as a result, I think is an important uh an important case for us all to pay attention to. |
| Andy (Host) | No doubt. And last thing, Asher, I mean, yeah, the lawsuit was filed on july twenty fourth. You've started doing the media rounds, um, including some high profile appearances on CNN no less. What have you heard from um |
| Asher Rapkin | I think the general response from our clients, from colleagues in the industry has been incredibly supportive and very positive. The gist that that that I get or the vibe that I get from those that have spoken up is that there is a lot of frustration in our community about all of this, and a similar, as I described earlier, a similar feeling of like frustration and helplessness and and a feeling like something is being done to you and that there's nothing you can do about it. So um I think a lot of people are being very positive in the same way that I was incredibly excited and supportive, and I remember reading about the AIPA challengers and how that felt. I remember that morning when I s heard the Supreme Court's decision and how that felt, you know, and uh I I think if I'm if I can be a little personal about it too, you know, I I I am I am not the kind of person that has ever felt the pressure of the government on his life telling me what I can and can't do or what I must do. And I recognize that as privilege and I appreciate that. But I have now experienced that in my own little economic way. And you know, it's horrible. So as a result, I understand why people would feel supportive. I have not heard from the federal government. Uh I suspect um and and I hope that that will only happen in court through uh through appropriate and legal channels. Um but as it stands right now, the folks that I've heard from are our colleagues and our friends and and it's been a it's been um supportive and positive. |
| Andy (Host) | Well very good Asher Rapkin, the CEO and co-founder of Collective Horology. Sarah Albrecht, the CEO and Chairman of the Liberty Justice Center. Thank you for joining us on the Business of Watches. And that's the Business of Watches for this episode. We hope you enjoyed. Please head on over to Hodinkee.com where you can join the discussion and leave any comments or questions about this episode or the business of watches in general. Who knows? We might even answer your Thanks for listening and see you next time. |