He fought Trump’s tariffs through the Supreme Court all the way to a refund

Victor Schwartz, the lead plaintiff who sued President Donald Trump over his sweeping global tariffs, outside the US Supreme Court.

Winning a landmark Supreme Court case against President Donald Trump’s most sweeping tariffs was one thing. Actually getting his illegally collected tariff money back from the government, though, was practically inconceivable to Victor Schwartz, owner of wine importer VOS Selections and the lead plaintiff in that case.

On Wednesday, it finally happened: Schwartz received a deposit from the government for $110,000, about 95% of the money he believes he’s owed.

“This is where the rubber meets the road. This is our win in real terms,” Schwartz told CNN.

Schwartz’s business is one of 330,000 who are due refunds on $168 billion worth of prior tariff payments after the Supreme Court overturned the bulk of Trump’s tariffs. US Customs and Border Patrol began to redistribute the funds to eligible businesses Tuesday.

After the Supreme Court verdict in February, a judge ordered CBP to quickly get a system up and running to issue refunds in a timely manner. CBP released a new portal to mostly automate the process for both importers and the government.

Once he got the hang of it, Schwartz found the portal to be “very well done,” adding that he didn’t have to manually “put any paperwork together” or contract outside help.

“The shoutout today goes to Customs and Border Protection,” Schwartz said on Wednesday.

But Schwartz was unable to confirm whether he also received interest the government was supposed to pay because the tariff refund receipt was not itemized.

The money Schwartz received will be put immediately toward paying suppliers for bills delayed in order to stay afloat.

What comes next

A handful of businesses, including Costco and Nike, are being sued by individual consumers who believe they are owed money back, too, since the companies passed on some of their tariff costs to consumers via higher prices.

CBP is only responsible for refunding the party listed on tariff entries. Companies can decide whether to provide any kind of relief to consumers, but it is logistically extremely complex for them to calculate exactly how much customers covered of the illegal levies.

That’s not the only major tariff case still being decided.

After the February Supreme Court verdict, Trump enacted a 10% tax across all global imports. The US Court of International Trade last week ruled that he lacked the legal authority to do. A federal appeals court this week reinstated the tariffs, pending its verdict.

Regardless, the 10% tariff is set to expire in July, at which point Trump would need the support of Congress to reimpose them.

The administration, though, is gearing up to unleash a slew of other levies under the auspices of a different law that many experts see as less legally dubious than the 10% tariff and the ones the Supreme Court reversed.

Click Here

How a New York Wine Importer Helped Take Down Trump’s Tariffs _ Law.com

Victor Owen Schwartz, owner of V.O.S. Selections, discusses sticking his “neck out” to challenge President Trump’s crippling tariffs, the mix of egos on his winning Supreme Court team and his hope for a “lifeline” from refunds.

By Jimmy Hoover

Click Here

«Chaque petite entreprise américaine a été derrière moi» : cet importateur de vin aux États-Unis qui a tenu tête à Trump sur les droits de douane

Victor Schwartz, importateur basé aux États-Unis, est parvenu à contrer les taxes sur le vin européen instaurées par Donald Trump le 20 février dernier. Retour sur ce bras de fer mémorable, lourd de sens pour le monde du vin.

Établi à Manhattan depuis 1987, Victor Schwartz ne s’attendait pas à devenir un symbole d’opposition à celui qui fait trembler la filière vin depuis son retour à la Maison Blanche. Déjà sous pression des nombreuses menaces de taxes sur les droits de douane exercées par le président américain, le business de Victor Schwartz, basé sur l’import de crus venus du monde entier, a pris un véritable coup avec l’annonce de taxes douanières dites «réciproques». Celles-ci avaient été annoncées début avril 2025 et l’Union européenne comptait parmi les cibles, avec un relèvement des droits de douane à hauteur de 20 % sur la quasi-totalité des importations, dont le vin.

«Cela nous a fait perdre certains contrats de vente au verre et d’autres opportunités de ce genre. Mais surtout, nous avons dû réduire considérablement nos stocks pour trouver les fonds nécessaires au paiement des droits de douane. Je dirais que c’est ce qui a été le plus déterminant. Même si les gens boivent moins de vin, les droits de douane ont été en quelque sorte la goutte d’eau qui a fait déborder le vase. Chaque fois qu’on avait des conteneurs, c’était entre 9 000 et 15 000 dollars», raconte Victor Schwartz au Figaro. Au micro de BFM en juin dernier, il prenait notamment l’exemple d’un Bouche de Rhône, le Château Roquefort, qui affichait autrefois 22 dollars la bouteille, désormais passé à 35.

Une attaque en justice contre Donald Trump

Mais l’homme d’affaires a décidé de ne pas en rester là. Il entre alors en discussion en avril 2025 avec le Liberty Justice Center, un cabinet d’avocats américain à but non lucratif œuvrant pour la défense de l’intérêt public, qui intentait un plus large procès contre les droits de douane imposés par l’administration Trump. «Je voulais leur parler pour leur expliquer ce qui se passait dans le secteur des vins et spiritueux. Et quand je les ai contactés, ils m’ont demandé de me joindre à l’affaire, ce que j’ai fait avec grand plaisir», résume Victor Schwartz. Le 14 avril 2025, le cabinet d’avocats dépose plainte au nom de Vos Selections – la société de l’importateur américain -, mais aussi de quatre autres entreprises de matériel de sport, de musique et d’équipement de travaux. Celle-ci pointe les droits de douane dits «Jour de la libération», «qui dévastent les petites entreprises à travers le pays».

Mais la procédure n’était pas sans risque pour cet auto-entrepreneur en cas de défaite de sa démarche, selon lui. Ce dernier dit également avoir craint le côté «vindicatif» du président des États-Unis. «J’aurais très bien pu perdre toute mon entreprise, et c’est toujours une possibilité», reconnaît-il. «Si je perdais tout, ce n’est pas grave. Je fais ça depuis 40 ans et nous avons accompli quelque chose de vraiment fantastique», estime le sexagénaire.

Victor Schwartz, bien que le seul importateur à avoir pris cette audacieuse initiative, a été largement soutenu par les professionnels de son milieu, et plus encore : importateurs, restaurateurs, chauffeurs de camion et consommateurs se sont unis derrière lui. «Chaque petite entreprise américaine a été derrière moi. J’ai reçu des milliers de messages après notre victoire à la Cour suprême», raconte-t-il.

Car ce combat de David contre Goliath s’est soldé par un succès. Le 20 février dernier, le Liberty Justice Center annonçait sa victoire en Cour Supreme six voix contre trois. Comme l’expliquait le cabinet d’avocats dans un communiqué, la loi sur les pouvoirs économiques d’urgence internationaux (IEEPA) invoquée par le président des États-Unis pour justifier les droits de douane, n’est valable qu’en cas de déclaration de l’état d’urgence nationale «en réponse à une menace inhabituelle et extraordinaire pesant sur la sécurité nationale, la politique étrangère ou l’économie américaine et provenant de l’extérieur des États-Unis». Or, l’excuse brandie d’un déficit commercial de biens «ne constitue ni une situation d’urgence, ni une menace inhabituelle ou extraordinaire».

Des remboursements attendus

La bonne nouvelle pour les importateurs demeure surtout le remboursement de ces droits de douane. Il s’agirait au total de 175 milliards de dollars de taxes, réciproques et punitives illégalement collectées selon Les Échos. Depuis le 20 avril, les douanes ont ouvert un portail permettant aux entreprises qui estiment avoir été victimes des taxes de Trump de demander un remboursement. Ils doivent ensuite être effectifs sous 60 à 90 jours. «Je viens d’entendre qu’on pourrait recevoir quelque chose d’ici la fin mai, ce qui est incroyable», rapporte Victor Schwartz, qui les attend de pied ferme.

Concrètement, cela permettra aux importateurs de «payer les fournisseurs, rattraper le retard, récupérer de l’inventaire qu’on n’allait pas prendre l’année dernière, nous permettant de faire du business». Mais cette victoire est avant tout symbolique pour Victor Schwartz : «Si une petite entreprise comme VOS Selections peut le faire, un sénateur d’un État comprenant des petites entreprises qui dit “ne remettez pas ces tarifs”, sera suivi par les législateurs, et les membres du Congrès. En ce qui concerne les grandes entreprises, ça leur a permis de se dire : “oui, peut-être qu’on doit résister”.» «Je pense qu’on a allumé une mèche», conclut-il.

Click Here

Victor Schwartz, le petit importateur de vin qui a vaincu Donald Trump

Click Here for Video
Click Here for Article

Un homme d’affaires de New York a réussi à faire tomber une partie du mur tarifaire de Donald Trump, mais il n’est pas au bout de ses peines.

Un homme en arrière-plan de bouteilles de vin sur une table, pendant une séance de dégustation.

Victor Schwartz a fondé l’entreprise VOS Selections il y a 40 ans.

Peu de gens peuvent se vanter d’avoir tenu tête à un président et encore moins d’avoir gagné. C’est le cas de Victor Schwartz, un importateur de vins, qui s’est battu – avec succès – jusqu’en Cour suprême pour faire invalider une partie des tarifs de Donald Trump. Une victoire retentissante pour laquelle il a tout risqué.

Dans ses petits locaux de Manhattan, le fondateur de VOS Selections parcourt ses étagères. Il cherche la bouteille de vin qu’il a ouverte en février pour célébrer sa victoire en Cour suprême. Ah! Le voilà!, s’exclame-t-il. C’est un Châteauneuf-du-Pape du Domaine du Banneret, produit par une famille avec qui il collabore depuis très longtemps.

J’adore la façon dont il vieillit, sa complexité, toutes les saveurs qui s’y expriment, lance-t-il avec énergie.

Il savoure encore sa victoire en Cour suprême. C’est un sentiment formidable. Nous avons changé le cours l’histoire. C’était un travail d’équipe, explique-t-il.

À l’été 2025, les tarifs dits réciproques de 15 % imposés sur les vins européens ont porté un coup dur à la marge de profit, déjà mince, de Victor Schwartz. Du jour au lendemain, il soutient qu’il a dû débourser de 9000 $ à 12 000 $ supplémentaires en droits de douane pour chaque conteneur de vin importé.

Un homme présente une bouteille de vin à un journaliste.

L’importateur de vin Victor Schwartz présente la bouteille de vin qu’il a ouverte en février après avoir eu gain de cause devant la Cour suprême des États-Unis. C’est un Châteauneuf-du-Pape.

Après l’imposition des tarifs, Victor Schwartz a consulté des avocats. Le Liberty Justice Center, un cabinet d’avocats à but non lucratif, lui a proposé de devenir le demandeur principal dans une poursuite visant à invalider cette surtaxe imposée en vertu de l’IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act).

L’importateur a vécu un sentiment de vertige quand il a vu le nom de son entreprise sur le document de la poursuite : VOS Selections, Inc. c. Trump.

Vous savez, poursuivre la personne la plus puissante du monde, c’est effrayant, très effrayant.

Une citation deVictor Schwartz, fondateur de VOS Selections

Avec cette bataille très médiatisée, l’importateur de vins pouvait tout perdre. Mais il était prêt à fermer son entreprise. Sa fille, Chloé, qui travaille avec lui, aurait pu la relancer, dit-il.

M. Schwartz a donc choisi d’aller de l’avant, comme si le destin avait mis ce combat sur son chemin.

Tout le monde parle, mais personne n’agit. Ces milliardaires et ces législateurs ne font absolument rien pour riposter. Je devais le faire, explique-t-il.

Le 20 février, la Cour suprême des États-Unis a statué que Donald Trump avait outrepassé ses pouvoirs en imposant ses tarifs dits « réciproques ». Le pouvoir de taxer revient au Congrès, a rappelé le tribunal, et pas au président.

Le propriétaire de VOS Selections accompagné d'un vigneron, pendant une séance de dégustation.

Des vignerons très reconnaissants

En ce matin d’avril, M. Schwartz et des clients sont rassemblés autour d’une table dans les petits locaux de VOS Selections pour une dégustation. Des vins de Bourgogne abordables, ça existe, lance-t-il.

L’homme d’affaires et ses invités sont entourés de bouteilles, de cartes de régions viticoles et de photos de vignobles européens.

Le vigneron Jean-Baptiste Lebreuil est venu présenter ses produits. Collaborateur de longue date de M. Schwartz, il estime que l’industrie lui doit une fière chandelle.

C’est fantastique, et beaucoup de mes collègues vignerons du monde entier sont très reconnaissants et très éblouis par sa force et sa volonté, explique-t-il.

Pour la présidente du Liberty Justice Center, Sara Albrecht, qui a mené le combat aux côtés de M. Schwartz, c’est aussi une victoire pour la Constitution et la séparation des pouvoirs aux États-Unis.

C’est d’autant plus symbolique, note-t-elle, en cette année de célébration du 250e anniversaire de la Déclaration d’indépendance des États-Unis.

Quand on y pense, il y a 250 ans, ce sont des entreprises comme celle de Victor qui se sont levées pour affirmer : “Voici comment nous voulons bâtir notre pays, voici comment nous voulons séparer les pouvoirs pour ne plus être gouvernés par un roi”, souligne Sara Albrecht.

Elle trouve profondément ironique que des Américains se soulèvent aujourd’hui pour affirmer, en substance, la même chose, ajoute-t-elle.

C’est aussi grâce à Victor Schwartz qu’une petite partie des tarifs imposés sur des produits canadiens ont été éliminés en février, ceux que le président avait justifiés par le trafic de fentanyl à la frontière.

Une première manche

Le gouvernement américain est maintenant forcé de rembourser les droits de douane perçus indûment. Une vaste opération s’est mise en branle. Au total, ce sont 166 milliards de dollars qui ont été encaissés par Washington et qui pourraient être restitués aux importateurs.

Or, malgré cette victoire judiciaire, l’industrie du vin n’est pas au bout de ses peines.

Le lendemain de sa défaite, Donald Trump a riposté en utilisant une autre loi pour imposer un nouveau tarif mondial temporaire de 10 %. Le Liberty Justice Center a lancé une nouvelle contestation judiciaire.

Et une autre vague de droits de douane, plus permanents, pourrait déferler au cours des prochains mois. On ignore toutefois leur portée pour l’instant.

Victor Schwartz n’est donc pas débarrassé des surtaxes, du moins pour l’instant. Mais même si ses vins conservent un arrière-goût tarifaire et un bouquet d’incertitudes, il est convaincu que cette première manche en a valu la peine.

Un homme d'affaire parle au téléphone et cherche une bouteille de vin.

En plus d’avoir fait contrepoids au pouvoir présidentiel, l’importateur espère avoir allumé une étincelle. Il souhaite convaincre les grandes entreprises, les milliardaires et les élus de prendre leurs responsabilités et d’empêcher l’administration Trump d’entreprendre des actions illégales.

Vous pouvez élever la voix et vous pouvez gagner. Nous sommes une toute petite entreprise. Vous voyez la taille de mon bureau? C’est tout. Et pourtant, nous avons gagné. Voilà. C’est cela qui fait la grandeur de l’Amérique!

Une citation deVictor Schwartz, fondateur de VOS Selections

Des félicitations… inattendues

Depuis sa victoire, Victor Schwartz est inondé de messages du public qui lui offrent félicitations et remerciements. Il fait la lecture d’une lettre à la calligraphie parfaite envoyée par un inconnu.

J’espère que votre entreprise gagnera en soutien grâce à votre geste patriotique, est-il écrit.

Une missive en particulier lui a fait très plaisir.

Il a reçu un courrier recommandé contenant un message de félicitations de l’ancien vice-président américain Mike Pence. Second de Donald Trump lors de son premier mandat, il a rompu avec le président après l’assaut du Capitole.

Une copie numérique d'une lettre envoyée par l'ancien vice-président américain, Mike Pence.

Je vous exprime ma gratitude pour le courage dont vous avez fait preuve en défendant les libertés constitutionnelles du peuple américain.

Une citation deExtrait d’une lettre envoyée par l’ancien vice-président républicain, Mike Pence

Je devrais la faire encadrer, lâche Victor Schwartz.

Cette lettre, venant de l’ancien allié et bras droit de Donald Trump, a presque aussi bon goût qu’un Châteauneuf-du-Pape.

How a Boomer-Lib Wine Importer Took Down Trump’s Tariffs

Meet the man who hobbled the president’s favorite policy.

The only time that wine importer Victor O. Schwartz was in the same room with Donald Trump was during a lunch in the 1990s at Jean-Georges, the high-end French restaurant on the ground floor of the Trump International Hotel. Schwartz overheard a nearby table of ABC staffers — the network’s old headquarters was around the corner — ragging on the local mogul who had just left behind a mess of bankrupt casinos in Atlantic City. “A bunch of people were trash-talking him and making fun of his hair,” Schwartz says. “And then he walked by, and, of course, they’re all glad-handing him.” The moment stuck with Schwartz. “I mean, he was a laughingstock in New York, he really was,” he says. And yet when Trump entered, all mocking turned to flattery. “It’s the hypocrisy of that world.”

As a 67-year-old on the Upper West Side, Schwartz is fairly representative of the boomer class living in the city. He likes the Grateful Dead and Lucinda Williams and hates what Donald Trump has done to this country. “We were a dependable military partner, a dependable economic power. We were a country of laws, all those kinds of things,” he says. “All of that? Just with these tariffs — out the window.”

When I met Schwartz at his apartment near Riverside Park in early April, he had the New York Times headlines from the Trump indictment and conviction in Manhattan cut out and taped to the back of his front door; he called it his “Travis Bickle” collage. On the glass coffee table in the living room was an issue of Spy magazine from 1990, our current president illustrated as if he were a baby on the cover, under the headline: “WA-A-A-A-H! Little Donald—Unhappy at Last.”

As a small-business owner, Schwartz has plenty of reasons to dislike the president’s policies. For almost 40 years, Schwartz has owned and operated VOS Selections, an importer and distributor of fine wines from 16 countries. Tariffs on wine have frustrated his industry since 2018, making the already heavily taxed business of sourcing from small farms and importing bottles from abroad more expensive.

When Trump’s second-term tariffs were first announced last April, it looked like an even worse disaster for American wine importers than the first term. A blanket 20 percent on goods from Europe affected not just the wine but the cork (from Portugal and Spain) and the good barrels (France). Sake from Japan and soju from South Korea were hit with a 24 and 25 percent tax, respectively. They might as well forget about South Africa, with its 30 percent tariff. Trump called the tariff rollout “Liberation Day.” Schwartz had an alternative term: “strangulation day.”

But the tariffs were also when he realized, unlike so many frustrated by Trump, he had an opportunity to do something. The weekend after the announcement of the tax on imports, Schwartz had what he says was  a “fortuitous conversation” at a family brunch. A relative mentioned that their law professor at George Mason University, Ilya Somin, had put out a call in the libertarian monthly Reason for plaintiffs to challenge the tariffs.

“Normally when I write something, it has little to no effect,” Somin told me. But the tariff blog found a ragtag crew of small businesses who wanted to file a case against the administration: a tackle store on Lake Erie in Pennsylvania, a pipe manufacturer in Utah, a women’s cycling brand in Vermont, the maker of a banana-shaped synth in Virginia, and, eventually, Victor Schwartz and his wine-importing business. Within a few days, Somin, together with attorneys from the Liberty Justice Center, asked Schwartz to be the lead plaintiff.

The wine-importing case made sense on an Econ 101 level. Tariffs are designed to protect domestic manufacturers by making foreign products more expensive. But how could a grower in Napa re-create the exact conditions necessary to produce a heavy red from Bordeaux? Doesn’t Champagne come from only Champagne? “This is just a particularly obvious example of the more general concept of comparative advantage where it makes sense to import goods that they can produce better or more cheaply than we can,” said Somin.

Relatives were less sure the case made sense on a personal level. “This is just such a vindictive president,” warned Chloe Schwartz, Victor’s daughter who serves as vice-president at the family company. Trump had already threatened a 200 percent tariff on French wine. Why put a target on your back?

But reading the news in the first months of Trump’s second term, Victor Schwartz says he was so disappointed by the tech companies and corporate law offices and the Ivy League schools capitulating to the president’s demands that it gnawed at him. “I certainly thought that the power and money in this country would step up to the insanity from this administration,” he says. It was not some liberal “vendetta on my part against Trump,” Schwartz says of joining the case. It was what other companies failed to do: stop Trump from hurting his company. “This was a bad business decision,” he says. “This is somebody who’s been bankrupt, what, six times? I do not believe he’s a good business person.”

Schwartz’s case — V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States — was filed the next week in the Court of International Trade. After it was bumped up to the federal court of appeals, it appeared before the Supreme Court this past November. He was in the room to hear the case along with famous faces like Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and actor John Mulaney — a friend of Liberty Justice Center attorney Neal Katyal.

In February, when the 6-3 decision came down that Trump had overstepped his authority, Schwartz tells me he was at home with his daughter. They started “jumping around dancing,” he says. To celebrate, they opened a 2015 blend of Grenache and Syrah grapes from the Châteauneuf-Du-Pape appellation in the Rhône Valley, unfiltered and aged in oak barrels. (That’s a red, by the way.)

Schwartz was quick to explain that his win at the Supreme Court was not the end of the fight. The decision launched a process to return over $160 billion in refunds; VOS Selections is looking at a low-six-figure payment, Schwartz says, plus 6 percent interest. But he expects delays in the process to return the illegal import tax, given the blundering nature of the administration’s paperwork so far. Trump has already weaponized this process, saying on April 21 that he would “remember” any companies that do not fill out the simple application for a refund. Meanwhile, the president has applied a blanket 10 percent tariff on all imports — a tax that could be overturned by another small business in New York, this time a spice importer in Jackson Heights.

Having spent a year of his life thinking about this, Schwartz has developed a grand theory of how the tariffs represent all things Trump. The president has been “hell bent” on this outdated policy for decades and was able to apply them only “because everyone let him do it.” “It’s very much out of the Roy Cohn playbook,” he said. “We’re just going to do it until we get caught.”

The tariffs are only the latest in a long line of downturns and unexpected challenges since Schwartz initially got into the wine business 40 years ago after leaving his first real job: commercial lending at Union Bank in San Francisco. He says he quit because they would not let him wear “fun ties.” Half a lifetime later he still favors paisley and small-flower patterns, like the white-and-blue pedals on his oxford the afternoon in early April we chatted.

Starting up in New York in the 1980s, he had to worry about the mob, which had a stake in alcohol dating back to the Prohibition era. “You were not in the wine business,” he says, “it was the booze business.” But the larger barrier to entry was cross-continental communication. “You didn’t have any of this technology,” he says, referring to a phone with GPS. “You had to go from this little village to that little village. You had to ask people questions.” Email and a globalized economy brought more competition in the 1990s but also made the job easier for Schwartz. Now, with President Trump’s tariffs and rocketing energy and fertilizer costs and generally skeptical trade partners across the board, he says his work — sourcing from small growers on five continents — is like a “canary in the coal mine” of a de-globalizing world. “We really are on the front edge of this, the frontier of it,” he says.

But the real challenge for the next decade is not on the supply side. You may have heard that people in their 20s are drinking less than they used to — a piece of information that sounds like an op-ed writer may have heard it from a taxi driver. But it is true: The industry is preparing for what analyst Rob McMillan calls the “sunsetting of the boomer.” McMillan is the founder of Silicon Valley Bank’s wine division and he has been warning about this trend since at least 2018, when it became obvious to him that when the most powerful consumer generation “gets to a certain age, they just can’t drink like they’re 30,” he says. “Our largest issue is demand.”

The Schwartzes are fighting this decline, too. “You want to develop a generation of people who want to enjoy a glass of wine with dinner,” says Chloe. “But if they can’t afford that, then that’s not what they’re reaching for and that culture doesn’t happen.”

Still, Schwartz is confident that he can find a way past the current tariffs and the generational time bomb ticking in the distance. Mostly, as we speak, he seems eager to get out of the apartment. A few weeks after the Supreme Court decision, Schwartz underwent surgery to replace his left hip. Other than the cane he favors to walk around the apartment, it doesn’t seem to slow him down much. An acquaintance in the wine world said he was a “pistol,” a word I’d never heard used to describe a man.

At home over the past few weeks, he has been tinkering with an elaborate wood puzzle shaped like a map of North America, which sits on a side table in the dining room. (The long banquet table in the middle of the room is covered with half-empty bottles of American Pinot Noir, which he was showing to a producer from Burgundy the night before.) Next to the puzzle is a fish spatula, which seems to me to be out of place. With his cane in one hand, Schwartz explains that it is for putting pieces together and moving them “wholesale” to their place on the map. “It’s a technique,” he says, to help make sense of this puzzle of our world. “Otherwise it’ll fall apart.”

Click Here!

The Connected Table Live with Melanie Young & David Ransom

Tariff Equity and Refund Resource for America

Click Here

Countdown to April 20 and the Start of IEEPA Refund Process

April 16, 2026: CAPE Refund Process

CAPE (CBP’s new refund system) opens this Monday, April 20, and it is currently the only way for businesses to recover IEEPA tariff payments—plus interest.

Before it goes live, here are the 5 most important things to do right now:

TOP 5 THINGS TO DO BEFORE CAPE OPENS MONDAY

1. Confirm You Have ACE Access

Make sure you (or your broker) have an active ACE Secure Data Portal account.

  • If you can’t log in, fix it now
  • If your broker controls access, confirm they are ready to file

Why it matters: CAPE filings happen through ACE—no access means no refund.

2. Set Up ACH (MANDATORY)

Ensure your banking information is entered in ACE.

  • Refunds will be issued electronically only
  • No ACH = no payment

Why it matters: CBP will not send checks—this is a hard requirement.

3. Identify WHO Paid the Tariffs

Determine whether:

  • You (Importer of Record) paid directly, or
  • A carrier (FedEx, UPS, DHL) paid on your behalf

If a carrier paid:

  • Refunds may go to them first
  • You should prepare to coordinate with them

Why it matters: This determines who actually receives the refund.

4. Gather and Clean Your Entry Data

You’ll need clean entry numbers (no dashes) and your filer code. Errors will delay your refund.

Prepare your CAPE upload file now.

  • Entry numbers:
  • No dashes
  • Accurate and complete
  • Include:
  • Entry number + filer code only
  • Remove:
  • Any extra fields or formatting issues

Why it matters: Bad data = rejected entries and delays.

5. Confirm Filing Authority (CRITICAL)

Only the Importer of Record or the original filing broker can submit a CAPE declaration.

Verify who is allowed to submit your CAPE declaration:

  • Importer of Record (IOR) OR
  • Original filing broker only

Also check:

  • Multi-suffix importers → separate declarations required
  • 4811 designee (refund recipient) is correct

Why it matters:

If the wrong party files, your submission may be rejected.

A few key updates from CBP:

  • Refunds will include interest under 19 USC 1505 (from payment to liquidation)
  • CAPE is required—even for businesses involved in litigation
  • There is currently no filing deadline, but early preparation matters

We’ve compiled step-by-step guidance, FAQs, and updates here: Visit the TERRA Refund Center

We’ll continue to update this as the process rolls out. If you have questions, stay close—this is moving quickly and more information will most likely be available on Monday.

Best,

The TERRA Team

Tariff Equity Refund Resource for America

Other topics posted on TERRA:

–>What to do if you paid IEEPA tariffs through FedEx/UPS/DHL

–>Should you sell your tariff refund?

–>Step-by-Step CAPE Refund Process from CBP

–>CBP Explains New ACE Refund System

*****There is a lot of mis-information out there and people telling you they can get you a refund for a fee–that is simply not true. We are all in the same situation until CBP completes their implementation plan. Additional expence or fees to people promising refunds is not necessary.

What’s Next for the Wine Importer Who Took Down the Trump Tariffs at the Supreme Court?

By Sara Ventiera

After many threats and much speculation, during April 2, 2025’s press conference dubbed “Liberation Day,” the Trump administration announced its sweeping tariff plan. Though less dramatic than anticipated, the 10% baseline tariff on all imports—and far higher rates for certain countries, including an additional 10% on the European Union—threw the already struggling wine and spirits industry into even more tumult.

Soon after, Victor Schwartz, founder of New York-based wine and spirits importer VOS Selections, stepped up to the plate to file suit with the help of Professor Ilya Somin of George Mason University and the Cato Institute, attorneys from the Liberty Justice Center, and four other small businesses. Ten months later, Schwartz’s case was being heard by the Supreme Court.

In a six-three ruling, the majority, led by Chief Justice Roberts, determined that the administration cannot use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—the law that was used to bypass Congress—to change tariff schedules without congressional approval.

The tariffs were deemed illegal: the billions of dollars that were collected now have to be returned.

So where are we now? To mark the one year point of the most recent tariff fiasco and understand what the future holds, we invited Schwartz onto the Wine Enthusiast Podcast to talk about the ruling, real-life impacts of the policy, and what to expect going forward.

On the Supreme Court decision

“When I started this and talked to Ilya Somin on that fateful Sunday in April [2025], I wanted to tell him about tariffs and the terrible impact on our business. But I did not know the legality … I just know import, pay your price, pay your customs and duty. Move on. Try to market your products. Talk to sommeliers and wine buyers, etc. I didn’t know anything about this.

Then discovering all the legal ramifications of what was done, I could understand where the Liberty Justice Center jumped on this case and really made something of it. It was blatant overreach of power.

We have this tripartite system. It’s a great system. The Founding Fathers were some smart dudes, and they set up a really good system of checks and balances. Checks and balances. These IEEPA tariffs had no checks and no balances. It was just a blatant overreach of power. I mean, it was gross. After, after the court, after we won, the Wall Street Journal came out and said we should win nine-zero.”

On the wine industry’s economic impact

“I learned that for every dollar of wine that’s imported, we create—our industry creates—over $4 of GDP. I think something like $4.25. It makes sense when you think about it: the warehousemen, the truckers, the waiters, I mean, on and on. We create GDP. We don’t pull from the economy. It’s not a negative deal. It’s a real positive for this country. One of the many reasons is that it’s just such bad business, this whole tariff thing.”

On how the tariffs affected U.S. wine producers

“I heard from wineries that they… for whatever reason, small wineries, and they ended up doing like 80% of their business with Canada, gone overnight.

Not to mention wineries that are looking for distribution within America, within the national distribution system, and then their distributor in whatever place in Houston, Texas, or Chicago, Illinois, saying, ‘Sorry, I have no money to buy more of your products—I’m paying tariffs. I have no money to expand my portfolio of domestic products. I have no money.’

Because, 15% we were paying, let’s say, from Europe, that’s a big chunk of it, right? 15%, that’s a lot of cash flow. People have to appreciate what an impact that is. And companies, like mine, small businesses, which mostly a lot of distributors are, where are they going to get that extra 15%? They’re not going to Wall Street to get that money, and their bank’s not going to give it to them. So what do you do? You’re going to contract. This has been the big contraction.”

On the how the tariffs impacted his business

“We paid a lot of money, six, seven, six and a half figures, whatever—big numbers. Where’d that money come from? We had to squeeze. We had to discount products, put things on sale. Find things that weren’t selling, that were moving more slowly. Cut down on SKUs, reduce our inventory numbers, what we were carrying. Contraction, contraction, contraction, contraction: our appetite for risk diminished to zero. All we could think about was paying tariffs. That was our focus. That’s been our focus. It still is our focus. We have to pay tariffs.

We squeezed through on staffing, just as we did during the pandemic. But a lot of larger companies found a lot of room. You know, we run pretty lean, but when you’ve got seven layers of management and 1000 reps on the ground, you can find places to cut—and it happened. Of course, we all know that people are drinking less alcohol, so the market is not great on top of that.”

On the future of tariffs and the role of Congress

“This administration is hell bent on tariffs. There’s a strange attitude where it’s almost like this kind of school marmish mentality. It’s like, you think you got away with those tariffs—we’re gonna get new ones for you…there’s a very odd attitude. Usually, you think of governments in this country, especially Republican governments, to be so pro-business. But we all know tariffs are anti-business.

We beat IEEPA, and that was really, really important, because these were across the board. They were random and you saw the way they were instituted: they were all over the place. It was chaos. The day we won at the Supreme Court on February 20, IEEPA was knocked down for the absolutely illegal use of that statute for tariffs. The administration immediately found another way to impose tariffs.

The fact is, they were allowed to do up to 15%. They seemed to make an error and think they can only do 10% so that’s what they put on—10. So the administration’s laxity went in our favor. So now they are sitting at 10%. They will go to 15% as promised. We will see what happens. These tariffs, by law, can only be instituted for 150 days, and then they have to be renewed. They’re narrower in the way they’re put on, and more limited in time and scope … These are very specific. And the renewal has to go through Congress.

To me, at least, that was the big goal of this lawsuit, because this all belongs in Congress. The power to tax is with Congress. So, that’s, in a nutshell, where we are with tariffs today. They are continuing, but they’re more limited in scope, and there are boundaries on them.”

The Guest

Victor Schwartz is the founder of VOS Selections, a New York-based importer that brings in wines, spirits, sakes, and non-alcoholic beverages from 16 different countries and five continents. The company focuses on highlighting products that are “hand-made by people who strive to express the essential qualities of their place.”

Click Here

CNN: The small wine importer that stood up against Trump’s tariffs — and won 

by Elizabeth Buchenwald

Click Here

Der Weinhändler, der Trumps Zölle kippte

Nicht große Konzerne wie Amazon oder Walmart haben Trumps Zölle vor dem Obersten US-Gericht gekippt, sondern ein kleiner Weinhändler aus Manhattan. Der will die zu Unrecht gezahlten Zölle nun möglichst schnell zurück.

Von Martin Ganslmeier, ARD New York

For 40 years, Victor Owen Schwartz has been importing wines and spirits, primarily from France and the Mediterranean region, into the USA. Last year was a real storm for him: first the tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump, then the collapse of the dollar against the euro – his imports became 30 percent more expensive.

His joy at the Supreme Court’s ruling was all the greater: “We jumped up and danced,” says Schwartz, “even though I have a bad hip.”

Schwartz: Trump should have some insight as a businessman

In the two weeks since the verdict, he has received thousands of emails and thank-you letters from across the country. In his Manhattan office, he points to the pile on his desk: “These are from businesspeople all over the country. This has nothing to do with politics; it’s about business. And as a businessman, the president should realize that he made a bad business decision with his tariffs.”

The New York wine merchant never imagined that a renowned law firm would choose him as their lead plaintiff. He had simply wanted to explain to the lawyers how much Trump’s tariffs were endangering his business.

“Bezos and Zuckerberg did nothing”

And he was annoyed that many of the big companies didn’t have the courage to fight Trump’s tariffs: “The Bezoses and Zuckerbergs of this world did nothing. For them, it was simply another cost factor. We small businesses can’t just cough up an extra $150,000 and carry on as before.” If the big companies back down, then at least the small ones have to fight back, Schwartz decided.

He inherited his fighting spirit from his half-Jewish father-in-law. Now 101 years old, he fled his hometown of Stuttgart in 1939 to escape the Nazis and started over in New York.

“The big win” was the victory against Trump

His son, the wine merchant, is also looking ahead. Within the next three months, he intends to get back every dollar of overpaid customs duties: “Of course, you want your money back if you’ve overpaid. But more importantly, the court told the president: You broke the law. That’s the big win.”

Schwartz points to a pocket edition of the US Constitution: The courts in the US have proven their independence. Last week, the United States Court of International Trade also ruled that the Trump administration must explain within 45 days how it intends to return up to $175 billion in tariff revenue to importers. For the New York wine merchant, that amounts to about $150,000.

Schwartz: Importers and customers pay the customs duties.

If the US president imposes tariffs again in six months without congressional approval, he will sue again, Schwartz announces. Because, contrary to Trump’s claims, it is not foreign manufacturers who pay the tariffs, but rather the importers and consumers in the US: “He’s taxing Americans. The money comes out of my pocket and my colleagues’. How can Trump boast about that? Is he proud of stealing money from us?”

US media praised the New York wine merchant, saying he had triumphed over Goliath. Schwartz added that he felt a bit like a “small-town hero from a very big city.”

Click Here!

Alum Took His Case All the Way to the Supreme Court—and Won

Wine importer Victor Owen Schwartz ’80 has made global headlines with his company’s successful battle against tariffs

Editor’s note: This is an update to a previous story on Schwartz’s victory in the Court of International Trade.

By Beth Saulnier

Like generations of Cornell seniors, Victor Owen Schwartz ’80 took Intro to Wines during his final semester on the Hill. But when he was sitting in a packed lecture hall on Friday mornings—learning about grapes, vintages, and terroir from legendary professor Vance Christian ’61, MS ’65—he could never have suspected that 45 years later, he’d become the global face of a Supreme Court case key to the U.S. wine import industry.

Schwartz’s small, family-run firm, VOS Selections, had been the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit that the Liberty Justice Center filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade in mid-April 2025, challenging the sweeping import tariffs instituted by the Trump Administration.

In late May, a three-judge panel ruled unanimously in favor of the plaintiffs—deciding that the tariffs had exceeded the scope of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, under which the administration had instituted them.

The case went to the U.S. Court of Appeals—which again ruled for the plaintiffs, in a 7-4 vote.

The Supreme Court then fast-tracked it, with oral arguments held in November.

In late February 2026, the decision came down: 6-3 in favor of VOS Selections and its fellow plaintiffs.

Victor Schwartz and his daughter, Chloë, standing outside the U.S. Supreme Court.
At the Supreme Court with his daughter, Chloë, with whom he runs VOS Selections.

Throughout the legal process, Schwartz and his company have been thrust into the international spotlight—fielding interview requests from just about every major U.S. newspaper and broadcaster, plus reporters from France, Italy, and beyond.

After the Supreme Court decision, Schwartz even got a visit from New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, who has been calling for billions in tariff refunds for the state’s businesses.

Throughout the legal process, Schwartz and his company have been thrust into the international spotlight—fielding interview requests from just about every major U.S. newspaper and broadcaster, plus reporters from France, Italy, and beyond.

For the Arts & Sciences alum—a former econ major who’s married to a fellow Cornellian, Cushla Naegele ’80—the media attention has been dizzying and unrelenting.

But amid the tumult, Schwartz was gracious enough to make time to speak with Cornellians. The following has been condensed from conversations following both the Court of International Trade and Supreme Court decisions.

First off: how did you celebrate your Supreme Court victory?

We opened a beautiful bottle of French wine, an old vintage of Châteauneuf-du-Pape: Domaine du Banneret, a family I’ve been working with for two generations. I thought that was appropriate and delightful.

You attended the oral arguments in November. What was that like?

It will always be a special point in my life—to not just have been to the Supreme Court, but to have actually been a plaintiff there. It was amazing to have that experience, to be in that room and hear the questions.

I was impressed with how knowledgeable the justices and lawyers were, and the seriousness of the court. This is the ultimate backbone of our country.

I was impressed with how knowledgeable the justices and lawyers were, and the seriousness of the court. This is the ultimate backbone of our country.

Would you explain why tariffs—which are intended to spur domestic industry by raising the costs of imported goods—are so challenging in the realm of wine?

Wine is not fungible. You can move a chip factory to Michigan, but you can’t make Champagne in the Napa Valley. Wines—especially the kind we’re interested in—are so specific to place, to culture, to the people there; it’s all tied in.

That’s what makes wine interesting. Otherwise, you’d have one red, one rosé, and one white, and they’d all come out of a tap. What’s so wonderful about wine is the difference.

Could you tell us about your business?

Ours is a small, family company—we’re about 20 people—that we started 40 years ago; first my mom worked with me, and now my 30-year-old daughter. We import from five continents.

We sell wines, spirits, sakes, and alcohol-free products to a lot of lovely restaurants and shops in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, and though wholesalers to additional states across the country. Our suppliers are also small, family operations. That’s why this particular issue is so important to me.

Victor Schwartz in a vineyard with his toddler daughter.
In a vineyard with his daughter, then a toddler.

How have the administration’s tariffs impacted your bottom line?

They’ve been super negative. We have to pay them upfront, and cash flow is so important; it’s a business’s circulatory system. Sure, profitability is important—but cash flow keeps the lights on. It’s how you pay your bills.

This is not a high-margin business. And to remove, for European goods, 15%—where are we going to find that money?

We’re going to cut back on the number of products we carry. We’re going to cut back on inventory. We’re not going to expand. It’s been a big period of contraction.

It doesn’t really make sense; you’d think that government is there to help businesses, but this has hindered them. American businesses paid these tariffs. I’ve been screaming that from the mountaintops—and every legitimate economist has said that’s a fact.

Why were you willing not only to participate in this lawsuit, but become the lead plaintiff?

There was really no option. I mean, we’re all sitting around complaining about people not stepping up, and here was an opportunity to do something—to put my money where my mouth is. I knew there were risks involved, but I felt I had to do it.

As these three court wins have rolled out, what kind of responses have you gotten from other businesspeople?

We’ve been receiving messages from all over the country. After the Supreme Court decision, we got over a thousand: “Thank you so much, we appreciate you standing up.”

Of course we get some very nasty stuff, but it’s far outweighed by the positive. And it’s been totally bipartisan.

American businesses paid these tariffs. I’ve been screaming that from the mountaintops—and every legitimate economist has said that’s a fact.

Bipartisan? Really?

Yes—my contention all along has been that this is not political. This was a bad business decision on the part of the administration, and it cuts across political lines.

Lastly: you posted excerpts from Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion on your LinkedIn. Besides the obvious of it being in your favor, what do you find most compelling about it?

Basically, that there’s a reason we have a deliberative body. One of the important things about the way our country works is that sometimes the other side is going to be in power. It’s not, “Let me grab as much power as I can while we’re in office, because we’re going to be there forever.”

That’s why we have these laws: so there are limitations on what you can do. This is not a monarchy or an autocracy. You have to follow the laws, and they’re there to help everybody. Just be thankful that they exist.

Click Here!

Droits de douane : Victor Schwartz, l’importateur francophile qui a fait plier Trump

Par Alexis Buisson

Click Here!

Droits de douane _ Victor Schwartz, l’importateur francophile qui a fait plier Trump – French Morning US

A NYC wine importer sued the Trump administration over tariffs and won. Now what?

It was not a simple request. The administration had already frozen university funding, cowed some of the country’s most powerful law firms and made clear to anyone paying attention that crossing the president came with a price.

Victor Schwartz, a New York City-based wine importer, had to give it some thought. He called his family. He called lawyers he knew. He called somebody in the attorney general’s office.

He had two questions he kept coming back to: “Is this very risky? And should I do it?”

The answer to both was “yes.”

“ I just felt like I had to do it,” Schwartz said. “It was maybe the most important thing I could possibly do.”

A year later, Schwartz is among a handful of small business owners who can say they took the president all the way to the Supreme Court — and won. In a 6-3 decision and a rare rebuke to the president, the court ruled that Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to levy sweeping tariffs was unconstitutional, a ruling that reverberated from Wall Street to the White House. The government collected roughly $175 billion in tariffs under that authority, according to one estimate, and businesses and importers are now hoping to get that money back.

But the victory is complicated. The court did not order any restitution, nor did it set out a refund mechanism.

The Liberty Justice Center has filed motions in both the Federal Circuit and the Court of International Trade pushing to get the refund process started, but there’s no clear timeline for when, or whether, that money actually flows back to the businesses that paid it. And, in the meantime, Trump has signed a new suite of tariffs under a different legal authority to replace the ones the court struck down.

“I mean the reality is we’re exactly in the same place,” Schwartz said, “in terms of running my business every day.”

Still, he said, a win is a win and this was a big one.

“Every journey begins with the first step or however philosophical you wanna get,” Schwartz said. “I think the first step can be the hardest.”

Tariff chaos

Schwartz founded VOS Selections nearly 40 years ago with a simple idea — find the wines and spirits that nobody else was importing, the bottles coming from family farms in places people hadn’t thought to look. Today, the company has about 20 employees and works with vineyards across 16 countries and five continents.

The business can sound romantic. Wine tastings and strolls in picturesque French vineyards. Schwartz laughs when he hears this.

“ I get up, put my tuxedo on, a fresh, clean shirt, and then we start with some breakfast champagne,” he said. “No. It’s roll up your sleeves, nuts and bolts, warehouse boxes … There’s accounts receivable, there’s inventory, there’s management headaches, regulatory headaches on top of that, you know, it’s like any business.”

Alcohol importers operate in one of the most heavily regulated industries in the country, he said. There’s federal licensing and state licensing, rules about who they can sell to and how they can price their products. There are also plenty of taxes to pay.

“Fine. That’s what it is. Not a problem,” Schwartz said. “That’s been a stable situation for a long time.”

But Trump complicated all of that with tariffs. VOS Selections managed during the first round in 2019. That was a more limited, targeted regime, Schwartz said, and the economy was in better shape.

When it became clear that Trump might win a second term, the wine and spirits industry started organizing.  “We did not want to get caught flatfooted,” Schwartz said.

None of it prepared them for what came next. Schwartz describes it as “absolute chaos” — blanket levies that lurched up and down, were applied to countries, then removed and then reapplied, seemingly on a whim.

The Manhattan Chamber of Commerce estimated that small businesses in the New York City metro area absorbed somewhere along the lines of $4.5 billion annually in added tariff costs, according to a report released in February.

Chamber President Jessica Walker said 5,000 businesses closed when the tariffs were fully implemented in the second quarter of 2025.

“That was the first time in many years that we saw a net loss of businesses,” Walker said.

Between the tariffs and the simultaneous decline in the dollar, Schwartz said he faced close to a 30% increase in costs. He increased prices about 7% or 8% and absorbed the rest himself by cutting inventory and  putting off new products and potential suppliers.

“I thought the idea of business should be expanding, but it’s been contracting,” Schwartz said.

The approach

It was early last year, over brunch with a visiting family member, when the conversation turned, as it always did, to tariffs. The visitor’s former law professor was mounting a legal challenge to the tariffs. Did Schwartz want an introduction?

By the following week he was on the phone with the Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian-leaning group with its own ideological interest in limiting executive power. Shortly after that, they asked if he’d be the lead plaintiff.

Sara Albrecht, who runs the center’s 12-person operation, said the organization knew it would take some work to “find people brave enough” to take on the administration, but Schwartz made for a good plaintiff for reasons beyond just his willingness to show up.

VOS Selections imports from enough countries that the case wouldn’t lose its legal standing if the administration dropped tariffs on one country or another. Plus, his situation made the central argument almost self-explanatory. The administration has promised the tariffs would bring manufacturing back to the United States.

“How do you manufacture Spanish wine in the United States?” Albrecht asked. “You can’t.”

The case moved through the courts quickly, by legal standards, first the Court of International Trade, then the Federal Circuit, then the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear it on an expedited basis.

Schwartz attended every hearing; he was in the Supreme Court chamber for oral arguments. Sitting there, he said, he felt the weight of the importance of law.

“There’s a reason that we create spaces like this just from an architectural perspective,” he said. “It’s this very neoclassical building … the justices are up on a dais, so they’re so, they’re raised up. I mean, everything about it, it’s very serious.”

By the time the arguments ended, Schwartz said he was feeling confident. The wait for a decision, however, was hard. When a ruling finally came on Feb. 20, Schwartz was at home with his daughter, Chloe, on a Zoom call with the legal team.

As Chief Justice Roberts began reading the opinion, they all began looking at each other and parsing his words.

“What are you saying? What does this mean?” Schwartz asked “Does this mean we won?”

“I guess it does,” somebody replied.

Schwartz had a hip replacement surgery scheduled for a few weeks later. He danced anyway, bad hip and all.

The next night, he had dinner with his family and opened an old bottle of Domaine du Banneret, a Châteauneuf-du-Pape he has been importing for two generations.

‘Confusion. Mass confusion’

The Supreme Court’s ruling, while sweeping, still had its limits.

“ I think there’s a sigh of relief on the one hand,” said Walker, the Manhattan Chamber president. But more than anything it is confusion, mass confusion.”

Businesses are trying to understand whether they’re eligible for refunds, what documentation they need, and how long the process will take.

Albrecht, from the Liberty Justice Center, is trying to urge patience. The Court of International Trade, which typically handles 50 to 60 tariff cases a year, has now received more than 900, she said.

The new Section 122 tariffs, Trump’s replacement regime, are more predictable than what came before. They come with rules and procedures the administration has to follow. They’re also set to expire after 150 days unless Congress votes to extend them. But at 15% across the board, they still represent a significant burden for importers like Schwartz.

Trump has been blunt about his intentions. “I guess tariff refunds have to get litigated for the next two years,” he said at one press conference. The Liberty Justice Center has already filed additional motions pushing for a quicker resolution.

Schwartz’s phone hasn’t stopped ringing since the court’s decision. The media, domestic and foreign, all want to talk to him. And he has thousands of fans, all writing to thank him – more than enough to drown out any hate that’s come his way.

Chloe, his daughter, is one of them. “He rose to the occasion when so many other, more powerful people and organizations let themselves be bullied by this administration,” she said in an email.

Through all of this, Schwartz has become something of a symbol of what the overlooked can do when the powerful won’t.

Even now, Albrecht said, larger companies are staying quiet even as they line up for a refund. She asked one major bulk retailer if it might consider supporting her center’s work. The response: It didn’t meet their philanthropic priorities. She likened the business owners that joined the suit to the Founding Fathers, tradesmen and businessmen who believed in a constitutional order.

“It’s really kind of poetic that in the 250th year, we have another group of small businessmen who are standing up,” she said. “Sounds very corny, but …”

Schwartz finds that framing a little much. This win, he said, is only the end of the beginning of this fight.

“But I think we have shown that there are chinks in the armor,” he said. “The person in charge of this country is not a king and does not have absolute authority.”

Click Here

Click Here

Trump took our money illegally. Americans will only feel the effects of tariffs, says the man who defeated the president

When the US Supreme Court last week struck down US import tariffs and ruled that President Donald Trump had unlawfully imposed them last April, the hero of the day was Victor Schwartz, the owner of a small New York wine import company. He decided to sue the President of the United States himself, regardless of the risk. How did he experience his adventure? Victor Schwartz gave an interview to Czech Radio from his New York office.

by Jana Ciglerová

It’s almost been a year since you filed your lawsuit. What kind of year was it?
For many people in our country, it was a year of chaos, instability, uncertainty, and expense. A terrible year. I started my business 40 years ago, I’ve been through a lot of different things. We’ve been through 9/11. We’ve been through a recession, a lot of things, but nothing like this. It was probably the worst year in the history of business.

The government basically cut itself off. They inherited a country and an economy that was recovering from the pandemic but was headed in the right direction. And they just ruined it, they just created chaos, they had no plan, no idea what the consequences would be, they didn’t listen to the experts who told them that tariffs were the wrong way to go.

You import wine into the United States, so you can’t convert your business to domestic production out of principle.
We import 30 percent of our goods, but remember that even domestic products depend on foreign products or ingredients.

There is no retailer in America that sells exclusively domestic wine, that’s not possible. We have to buy from abroad, all the sophisticated machinery that winemakers use is made in Austria or Switzerland. Italy makes the corks, the boxes, the glass. We live in a globalized world and tariffs are like closing the borders. And that doesn’t work.

Can you describe to our listeners how you dealt with tariffs on different goods and from different countries?
The container arrives at the port. You fill out the paperwork and they tell you how much you’re going to pay – you owe us this much in fees. There are tariffs that we still have to pay, and then there are tariffs.

So they tell you: Do you want your goods? Pay this much and that much. We import from 16 countries. At one point, Trump threatened 50 percent tariffs on everything from the European Union. We have hundreds of products, and for some of them we had to change the price lists four times in a row.

How does that affect the price of wine? Do you increase it or absorb it?
We can’t absorb it, our margins aren’t big enough. It’s a low-margin business. So no, it’s not big enough to absorb an extra 15 percent. Don’t forget the dollar has dropped by almost 50 percent. So our costs have gone up by 30 percent.

And did you lose customers?
We lost business, not customers. We had to find cheaper products. For example, a restaurant told us they couldn’t charge $25 for a bottle. So we had to find one that would only cost $20.

When we ordered a particular wine, we didn’t even know it would have such a duty. It takes months for wine to get here from Europe. It’s complicated. We’re a small company, I can’t go to the capital market to get money to pay the duties. So we cut back. We reduced our inventory. We had to pressure our suppliers to wait much longer for payments from us.

Do you know how much money you lost?
We do. That’s why we filed this lawsuit. We were one of five companies that came together and, through the law firm Liberty Justice Center, were part of that lawsuit.

You were the one who spoke the most for those five companies. Why did the others choose you as their leader?
That’s a good question. Maybe because we had a very clear story about how tariffs affect us. Our company is on the front lines. We import products from abroad. We bring containers into the port and pay tariffs on them. We are a clear example of why tariffs are bad. We’ve been in business for 40 years and we’re a family-owned company. So our story has a lot of advantages.

Were you reluctant to go to court when you had to go against the president?
I only found out later that others didn’t want to go because they were afraid of the president, of course. You know, our company’s slogan has been “Courageous Import” for several years now. Originally, I meant that we have the courage to import wines or liqueurs that people have never heard of, from small producers. But during the legal process, the slogan took on another meaning.

And were you afraid?
You know, fearlessness doesn’t mean you don’t have fear. It means the courage to face fear, to know what it is, but to have the courage to face it. So it’s actually fearlessness, which is more about fighting fear and having the courage to admit it, but still moving forward. That’s what I would say. So yes, we had to move forward, we had to do something. Because our country is really threatened, it’s still in a fragile situation.

But when you filed that lawsuit, did you expect to win?
When I said I was going to do it, I thought I was going to get into some kind of class action lawsuit. I had no idea about the law. I just knew the tariffs were bad. I didn’t even know anything about the constitutionality of using tariffs under the IEEPA [a 1977 law that allows tariffs to be imposed in the event of a threat to national security, ed.] .

It wasn’t until I got into it that I realized how many arguments we had to win the case with. I think there were nine in total, showing why the law was being misused.

You are such an American story – a small person who took on a big giant and won.
Yes, but remember that small businesses make up about two-thirds of business in America. Together we are big. We won because we were right. We had to win, we had justice on our side. It’s a big story.

We knew we should win, we had a strong case. I realized it in the Court of International Trade in New York. Last May, we heard the government’s arguments, and it suddenly became clear to me. How could we lose? Their case is so weak, we thought. It was shocking how weak their defense was.

And when you heard the Supreme Court justices argue this, did you feel like you were going to win?
Yes, but I was still worried. Because you know how many justices Trump appointed to the court? I thought they were going to go against us. But when I heard the questions, especially from Amy Coney Barrett, who asked a lot of interesting, tough questions, I felt hopeful. And then Neil Gorsuch came in and took everyone’s breath away. I highly recommend you read his reasoning for the verdict. It’s very good.

Since then, I’ve stopped thinking about if we’ll win, but when and how we’ll win. Six to three or five to four? That’s the difference. Five to four sounds like a close result, six to three is a definite.

When you found out last Friday that you won, how did it feel?
It was like winning gold. It was amazing. A wave of emotions, I was crying, it was just unbelievable. It was an amazing feeling, finally getting to this stage. You know, almost a year of life.

It was a tough year in many ways. For Americans, for business… A lawsuit where you’re suing the powerful United States government. But it was a year where I really had to focus and keep my balance.

Moreover, in a case that is so important to the president and at the same time crucial to the rest of the world, not just the United States. Do you also get feedback from abroad?
Oh my God, and what kind! I think I could run for Prime Minister of Italy and win. For some reason, the Italians really embraced my story, they see it as David and Goliath, a small man against a big giant.

I get letters and calls from all over the world, even from Japan. I get a lot of positive feedback from all over America. That’s the best part, these really heartfelt messages from real people sending me sincere words of praise and appreciation. It’s fantastic.

Do you have any new orders because people want to support you?
We sell wholesale, we don’t sell to individual consumers. I don’t know how the business is going to be now. I think in general it doesn’t necessarily affect our orders. People don’t follow the news that closely. Until they pay a lot of money for eggs, they don’t see anything. Then it becomes a big deal.

What happens next? Will you get your money back? Will you sue for it?
Of course we are entitled to a refund. Anyone who has paid duty under the IEEPA is entitled to it. It is the government’s duty to return our money to us. That is the verdict of the Supreme Court. It ruled that the government acted unlawfully. They must return our money. It is not an option. They charged us something they should not have charged us.

Do you know how much that is?
How much will we get back? Yes, it’s a lot of money. 

What did you think of the president’s reaction, attacking a judge and then imposing new tariffs?
He’s reacting very harshly and childishly. He’s supposed to be taking care of the people and the business community in this country, but when we saw his reaction, it feels like he’s punishing us.

It’s as if he’s saying, “Yeah, so you think you’re going to get away with this? No way. You know what? We have other ways. We’ll get you another way.”

Is this how he supports the business community? Who can think like this? After all – to be clear – no one in the business community supports tariffs.

But the president said that foreign companies would pay the tariffs.
Yes, he said that, but he says a lot of things that are not true. And this is not true either. It is 100% false. Goldman Sachs and the New York Fed have published studies that have been cited by many economists and that show that no foreign companies pay tariffs. I don’t know of any foreign companies that pay tariffs, look at the statistics.

Tariffs are paid by American businesses. The president took money from my pocket and the pockets of other business people and took it from us illegally. Now he has to give it back. Nobody who works at the level of business that I do, with small family businesses, has the money to just absorb an extra 15 percent.

That’s passed on to American consumers, who pay for it. And it’s slow, it can take a long time for these economic forces to work their way through the system. So Americans haven’t felt the full impact of the tariffs yet. When they do, they’re going to be unhappy, and they’re already unhappy. Look at the polls, they’re not good. Americans, among other things, are unhappy with the economy.

The president is now imposing new tariffs. Does your lawyers’ analysis show that he has the authority to do so?
Can I tell you what our lawyer says? He’s a very reputable lawyer. That particular law is being misapplied again, because it should only be used in the event of a major balance of payments problem, not a trade problem. Trump claims there is a balance. But that’s like saying I have a balance of trade problem with my corner store because I buy a lot more from it than it buys from me.

Have you faced any threats for leading this lawsuit against the government?
We’ve received a lot of nasty messages, yes, but no physical threats. If we had, we would have reported it to the police right away.

You’ve been doing business in New York for over 40 years. Donald Trump is from New York. Did you run into him before he was president?
That’s pretty funny. Not personally, but through close friends. Both Donald and Ivana Trump. They cheated on payments in various business areas. They cheated on suppliers all the time. But it’s well known.

Ivana did this to a friend of mine who is a graphic designer. She did commissioned artwork for her and then she said, “I’ll only pay you half, take it or leave it.”

That was outrageous. I don’t work like that, but they do. To them, business means one person loses and the other person wins. We shouldn’t work like that, we should work in a way that makes it a win-win situation.

Do you know that Ivana was Czech?
Of course. But I won’t blame you. Just like you, don’t blame me that Donald Trump is American.

Do you sell any Czech wines?
No, the closest wines I sell are from Hungary.

But you didn’t drink your victory to that, did you?
Everyone asks me about that! I love the diversity of wine. That’s what fascinates me about wine, that one night I can have a wine from one region, one country. The next night it’s something else, and that’s the beauty of wine. The beauty lies in the diversity. It’s interesting.

Are you optimistic about the future of your business now?
Yes. Things will get better. But that doesn’t mean it won’t be hard. I mean, there are a lot of tough times ahead, no doubt about it.

What are your tariffs now? Ten percent? Fifteen?
We had a 15 percent IEEPA tariff from Europe, which has been out for a few days now. But I don’t know for sure until I ask my customs broker. My understanding is that anything that was at sea before Tuesday – so it’s already shipped – will not be subject to IEEPA tariffs. And the new tariffs went into effect on Tuesday. But I could be wrong, because we’re living in very uncertain times. So I don’t know.

Click Here


Click Here for More

Deze wijnhandelaar won van Trump bij het Hooggerechtshof: ‘De invoerbelastingen creëren chaos’

Click Here

Trouw

 

A Small NY Wine Importer Took On the President of the United States on Tariffs. Guess Who Won

Victor Owen Schwartz of VOS Selections explains why wine has ended up at the centre of America’s tariff fight to Sara Danese

Read on Substack

 

On Friday 20 February, the Supreme Court ruled that President Trump’s use of IEEPA (the International Emergency Economic Powers Act) to impose tariffs was unconstitutional — and wine is right at the centre of this story.

A small New York wine importer, VOS Selections, brought the case that helped put new limits on presidential power on tariffs. Despite what Trump administration officials may claim, the ruling is likely to deter any serious attempt to revive “emergency” tariffs in the same way. Tariffs sit with Congress. Congress can lend that authority to the President in specific circumstances — but only through clear statutes and with limits.

Victor Owen Schwartz, founder of VOS Selections, joins me to explain why he felt compelled to act — and why he sees wine as the “canary in the coal mine”, a bellwether for international trade.

It was inspiring to hear how he found himself in the eye of the storm.

I think you’ll find a bit of hope — and a lot of resilience — in his story too.

Click Here

 

The Strong Buzz with Andrea Strong: Trump Take Down

Meet Victor Schwartz, the small business owner behind the tariff victory at the Supreme Court

Read on Substack

Click Here

Victor, how did you even get mixed up in this in the first place?

It’s a crazy story. It was back in March when I was introduced to Ilya [Somin, a law professor at George Mason University and constitutional scholar who was bringing the case against Trump]. A family member who knew how devastating the tariffs would be, said, “my former law professor is bringing a case against the tariffs and you should talk to him.” So that’s how I got involved. I just wanted to let him know about how hard this was on the wine trade. I said, “Ilya, I want you to know we are on the front lines, we are the canary in the coal mines.”

The next day he called and said I want you to join our case. I thought it was a big class action thing but it was only five of us. I said sure I will join. Then a few days later he called and said, actually we want you to be the lead plaintiff. The case will be VOS v. Trump. And just reading that in print I was laughing, and excited, and insanely scared. All of those emotions in that same moment. There was a lot of deliberation with family and lawyers. I asked them: should I do it? Will I be at risk? They said yes and yes, but I should do it anyway. I agreed. I mean, how could I sit there and complain without not doing something? I can’t complain about people being spineless and then ignore this issue. I could not live with myself.

It was a long road and you won!

And when we won, Trump called me a Eurocentric sleeze ball. He said he would no longer spell the Supreme Court with capital letters. This is the discourse level of the President of the United States. He brings things to a new low level. This is the first time the Court has come out against him. He is getting sued right and left. What I want to point out is that there is a higher message to this case that goes beyond tariffs. This is about the balance of powers. It was a beautiful decision because the tariffs are not just bad policy, they are illegal.

What is the harm already done in general and to your industry as a wine importer?

If you look at Ilya’s story in the Atlantic you see the dollars and cents laid out clearly. U.S. businesses had already paid more than $133.5 billion toward these illegal tariffs as of mid-December. They may face a difficult process for reclaiming their funds. But the Trump administration promised to repay them in lower-court filings, and failing to do so now would in itself be a serious violation of the law.

And for small businesses, on a more micro level, cash flow is very important. These 15% tariffs completely eliminated our cash flow. I had to change the makeup of my portfolio, you have to have inventory contraction. We can’t afford to work with producers that don’t turn over so fast, and we usually work with off the beaten path wines but those take a while to catch on and sell. You can’t be expansive. You also have to raise prices when we are already in a down market for wine for a number of reasons. And the dollar has dropped close to 15%. It’s a weakening market and our prices went up 7%.

I’ve read that the court did not weigh in on whether or how the federal government should provide refunds to the importers who have paid the tariffs, estimated in 2025 at more than $200 billion. What are you hearing on refunds?

Since Friday, “refund” is the word of the day; I did not see one line about refunds in decisions which is because the Court was not ruling on refunds. It was very specifically about the legality of Trump’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA). So the Supreme Court addressed only the legality of the tariffs—not the administrative mechanics of repayment.

However, Sara Albrecht from the Liberty Justice Center has said that once a tariff is declared unlawful, the government cannot retain funds collected under that invalid authority. She prepared a document on this topic:

“Refunds flow from the invalidation itself. Moreover, the government had already represented in the lower courts that refunds—with interest—would cure any harm. There was no separate controversy requiring Supreme Court instruction on that point. The government explicitly argued that if the tariffs were held unlawful, it would repay the money—with interest. That representation was central to its claim that businesses were not suffering irreparable harm while the case was on appeal. Now that the tariffs have been invalidated, those assurances matter. Refunds should go to American businesses that paid the tariffs at the border; In many cases, affected companies are small and mid-sized U.S. businesses. Refunded capital stays in the United States—supporting payroll, inventory, expansion, and in some cases lower consumer prices.”

Any lessons or reflections to share?

It’s important that people – regular people – stand up. It is amazing that someone who runs a small business like mine can bring a case on the merits and have it heard. We had the courts look at the law and even though the case was against one of the most powerful people on the planet, we won. It’s amazing and says a lot about America. This case hit such a nerve which is why people have been reaching out and contacting me and congratulating me. But it’s not about me. It’s about the justice system. What won is the American justice system. If we had not won it would have been a stain. But we won. And that’s so much bigger than just this case.

“Ich will mein Geld zurück. Jeden Cent”

New Yorker Victor Owen Schwartz sued against Trump’s tariffs and won. How could a small wine importer become such a threat to the US president?

 

DIE ZEIT: Mr. Schwartz, where were you when you won against the President of the United States ?

Victor Owen Schwartz: We were all sitting together that morning, waiting for the Supreme Court’s decision : my daughter, who works at the company, and our lawyers. It wasn’t the first time, because the court doesn’t announce which cases will be decided when. Someone in the group said, “This is going to be another disappointment. Trump’s State of the Union address is coming up. Maybe the court doesn’t want to embarrass the president.” So we were expecting a letdown. And then the decision came.

TIME: And?

Schwartz: I jumped up and danced. Even though I have a bad hip. But I didn’t feel a thing. It was pure relief. We had believed we would win – but believing is different from actually winning.

ZEIT: Did you have any doubts about the outcome?

Schwartz: Of course, but legally our case was strong. We had previously won two lower courts – unanimously. Even judges appointed by Republican presidents agreed with us. This was never a partisan issue. The Constitution is clear: The right to impose tariffs lies with Congress, not the president. Period. The president exceeded his authority.

ZEIT: Apparently, the US justice system is still functioning.

Schwartz: That is indeed one of the most important findings. Everyone depends on it, the whole world depends on the United States being a state governed by the rule of law. That is something we are proud of, a central part of our self-image: that the law prevails, that no one is above the law. We have no king and no dictator. If someone ignores clear rules, that must be corrected.

ZEIT: Your company primarily imports wine from Europe to the USA. How significantly were you affected by the tariffs?

Schwartz: Between May and December, we paid approximately $150,000 in tariffs. This year, the total would have been even higher. Where is a small company like ours supposed to get that kind of money? I have to pay the tariffs immediately, as soon as the wine arrives in the US, even before I’ve sold a single bottle. We have about 20 employees. So we reduced our inventory by 20 to 25 percent. We cut ties with suppliers we’d worked with for years. We deliberately downsized to remain liquid. It was an existential threat. Absolutely.

TIME: Did you pass the costs on to the customers?

Schwartz: Partly, but not entirely. We not only had the tariffs, but also a weak dollar. For European wines, that meant roughly 30 percent higher costs overall. We had to pay 15 percent of that to the government. But our net margin is between five and ten percent. So the burden from the tariffs alone exceeded our profits. Of course, prices had to rise—seven or eight percent, perhaps. But the market is weak. People are drinking less alcohol. The small wine shops I sell to told me it was the worst January and February ever. And at the same time, you hear from Washington that the economy is strong. Maybe for big tech companies, maybe for Nvidia. But I’m not in the AI ​​business. I sell wine.

“We are like the canary in the coal mine”

ZEIT: You mean the big downturn might still be coming?

Schwartz: We’re like the canary in the coal mine. You know that saying in Germany? Miners used to take a canary down the mine because they warn of gases that humans can’t smell. The birds stop chirping. Our industry, the liquor trade, is right at the front of the mine; we were the first to feel the effects of the tariffs. If this continues, the entire US economy will suffer much more than it has so far.

ZEIT: How did your European suppliers react?

Schwartz: They couldn’t do anything. These are small winegrowers, cooperatives, family businesses. Not luxury corporations with huge margins. Nobody could just swallow 15 percent. One of the biggest lies is the claim that foreign producers pay the tariffs. That’s not true. Americans pay them. I paid them. My colleagues paid them. When the government proudly announces how much money it has collected, it means: It took it out of the pockets of small businesses.

ZEIT: How did it come about that you joined the lawsuit against the government and ultimately even led it?

Schwartz: By chance. A family member mentioned at lunch that his former professor, Ilya Somin, was working on a lawsuit against the tariffs. I just wanted to tell him how dire the situation was in our industry. A few days later, I was asked if I wanted to join—as the lead plaintiff. That’s when I realized the situation was serious. Many advised me against it. But I felt someone had to stand up for themselves. We were all disappointed in the big companies in the country that hadn’t done anything about it. Where were the tech billionaires? Where was Jeff Bezos? Where was Mark Zuckerberg? They caved to Trump. No one was openly opposing the tariffs or the president. I thought: If they won’t, then I will.

ZEIT: Were you afraid of reprisals?

Schwartz: Of course. We’re a highly regulated industry. They could have made things difficult for us. I thought to myself: In the worst-case scenario, we’d have to close the business. I was truly prepared to lose everything. But then my daughter and I would have had to start a new company. I’ve been doing this for almost 40 years. But it was too important to remain silent. There were nasty emails, threats. Very unpleasant things. But there was no official action. That would have been very unwise politically, too.

ZEIT: Do you expect a refund of the customs duties you paid?

Schwartz: Everyone needs to get their money back. I want mine back, too. Every cent. The tariffs were levied illegally. Technically, it’s straightforward. Every import has an electronic code. The tariffs were automatically debited from our account. They can be refunded just the same. It’s not a bureaucratic impossibility. Whether and how it will be implemented politically remains to be seen. But that’s a decision for Congress, not the president.

ZEIT: What is the most important insight you have gained from this process?

Schwartz: A great many people were waiting for someone to speak out. I received thousands of messages – from Democrats, Republicans, Independents, from Europeans. It was never just about wine. It was about the principle that power must be limited.

ZEIT: Mr. Schwartz, there’s one thing we haven’t talked about: What is your favorite wine?

Schwartz: It’s like with your own children. You can’t love just one. But the southern Rhône Valley is close to my heart. That’s where it all began. I went to the South of France in 1987, near Avignon, to learn everything about wine. Then I came back to New York and wondered: Is my palate good enough? Can people trust my decisions? Apparently, they could.

Click Here

Die Zeit

 

Click Here

Così mister vino Victor Schwartz ha fatto tremare la Casa Bianca

L’importatore americano di vini pregiati era il primo querelante contro i dazi di Donald Trump

Marco ZatterinMarco Zatterin
Victor Owen Schwartz e la figlia Chloë Syrah (da Fb)

Victor Owen Schwartz e la figlia Chloë Syrah (da Fb)

Victor Owen Schwartz ha capito che avrebbe potuto farcela un mercoledì dello scorso maggio davanti a un piatto di linguine con le vongole. Quella sera, una telefonata del Liberty Justice Center interruppe la cena. Il gruppo di legali che si batte per i diritti dei cittadini lo informava che la Cit, la Corte Usa per il commercio internazionale, aveva approvato il ricorso contro i dazi di Donald Trump di cui era il primo querelante. «Una grande vittoria per le piccole imprese», commentò il 67enne importatore americano di vini pregiati, nato nel New Jersey e patron della newyorchese Vos Selections che ha fondato nel 1987.

«Ora si va avanti!» proclamò, assicurando di essere pronto ad arrivare sino alla Corte Suprema, cosa che ha fatto senza paura, sino al verdetto che venerdì ha dato un colpo brutale all’Impero che il presidente degli Stati Uniti cerca di costruire con la parola del vocabolario che ama di più: «Tariffe». «Non faccio politica – ha commentato a caldo Mr. “Vos” -; mi batto in difesa di un’attività costruita su lealtà, fiducia e sul coraggio di importare senza compromessi».

Un trionfo. «I dazi che siamo stati costretti a pagare minacciavano la nostra sopravvivenza – ha spiegato Schwartz al Wine Spectator -. Fortunatamente, i tribunali a ogni livello hanno riconosciuto queste gabelle per ciò che sono: un eccesso di potere governativo incostituzionale». Lo ha ribadito a tutti i network che lo hanno raggiunto, con la sua faccia allegra segnata da una fronte alta e una barba sale e pepe più folta dei capelli. A metà anni Ottanta, quando lasciò il posto in banca, avrebbe certamente riso se gli avessero detto che un giorno avrebbe sfidato e sconfitto il più pugnace degli inquilini della Casa Bianca. In quel tempo, lui pensava a un ristorante. «Ero un buon cuoco – ha raccontato al Wall Street Journal –, ma non avevo il tocco magico dello chef professionista». Così decise di metter l’esperienza finanziaria al servizio dell’altra cosa che amava – il buon vino – e lanciò la Vos Selection.

Ha cominciato con un paio di etichette francesi sino a compilare un catalogo con ottocento tipi di bottiglie provenienti da cinque continenti, Italia compresa. Ora amministra il suo piccolo impero nell’ufficio sull’Ottava Avenue con la figlia Chloë Syrah che lo ha affiancato nel 2019, passo forse inevitabile per una donna il cui secondo nome richiama un vino originario della Valle del Rodano. Felice, per quanto preoccupato. «Sono costantemente attaccato da messaggi e email – ha ammesso –. È brutto e non so cosa fare: teniamo sempre le porte dell’ufficio chiuse. Tuttavia non avevamo scelta, non potevamo alzare i prezzi e abbiamo coperto noi i dazi, una somma a sei zeri». Poi si è pronunciata la Corte suprema. «Gli Stati Uniti sono un grande paese – ha dichiarato -; la sentenza lo dimostra».

E adesso? La vittoria di Schwartz comporta che lui e tutti gli importatori americani potrebbero ricevere rimborsi per 134 miliardi di dollari (dati Customs and Border Protection al 14 dicembre) eppure il copione non è ancora scritto. «Troppe incognite – ha concesso Schwartz a Abc News -. L’amministrazione imporrà nuovi dazi e dovremo vedere come saranno». Nell’attesa, potrebbe essere l’occasione per stappare la bottiglia più preziosa della sua cantina che, stando al sito di Vos Selection, è lo champagne Cazals Clos Cazals Blanc de Blancs Extra Brut del 2013. Costa 176 dollari. Non poco. Ma se non oggi, quando? —

Click Here

I vini italiani di Victor Schwartz, l’importatore che ha messo al tappeto Trump

I vini italiani di Victor Schwartz, l’importatore che ha messo al tappeto Trump

Fondatore di Vos Selection, l’imprenditore di New York che ha trascinato in tribunale il presidente degli Usa per la questione dazi è legato soprattutto alla Francia, ma nel suo portafoglio compaiono anche cantine toscane, venete e perfino un valdostano.

Se non fosse che da Donald Trump ci si può aspettare di tutto, soprattutto quando gli si dà torto come ha fatto la Corte Suprema USA sull’affare dazi, i produttori italiani di vino – ma non solo loro – dovrebbero erigere una statua in onore di Victor Schwartz. È stato lui, infatti, a mettere in moto la macchina della giustizia di un Paese democratico e nel quale, contrariamente alle dittature, non basta la volontà di un presidente per sconvolgere ogni regola.

Quelli del vino dovrebbero però essere particolarmente legati a Schwartz perché lui, nella vita, fa l’importatore proprio nel comparto di cui ci occupiamo. E tra le sue referenze compaiono diverse etichette italiane. Scopriamo quali.

Victor Schwartz con la figlia Chloë Syrah
Victor Schwartz con la figlia Chloë Syrah

UNA FIGLIA DI NOME SYRAH

Innanzitutto, ecco la ragione per cui Schwartz è diventato il principale querelante in un ricorso supportato dal Liberty Justice Center. Lo ha fatto perché le decisioni di Trump rischiavano di portare la sua Vos Selections – una piccola azienda familiare di importazione di vini e spiriti con sede a New York – al collasso, riducendo i margini già contenuti del settore wine e costringendo Schwartz a tagliare di un quarto le scorte a disposizione dei suoi clienti. A quel punto, Schwartz non ci ha visto più e ha dato il via al ricorso, che poi ha raccolto l’adesione di altre “vittime” dei dazi, il tutto attraverso il supporto del Liberty Justice Center.

La sentenza del 20 febbraio 2026 da parte della Corte Suprema ha stabilito, a larga maggioranza (6 contro 3) che Trump ha oltrepassato i suoi poteri. E quindi i dazi non potevano essere applicati, con l’ormai famoso o per meglio dire famigerato “Liberation Day tariffs”, perché mancava l’approvazione del Congresso.

Victor Schwartz_newsweek

Una vittoria su tutta la linea per l’importatore, che non è certo a capo di un colosso del settore. La sua Vos Selections è infatti una piccola azienda a conduzione familiare, fondata nel 1987 da Victor, dal 2019 affiancato dalla figlia alla quale, in omaggio al mondo del quale si è innamorato da giovane, ha dato il nome di Chloë Syrah Schwartz. Nel cuore del fondatore c’è soprattutto la Francia, Paese dove Schwartz si trasferì da giovane per scoprire i segreti dei vigneron e scovare denominazioni non esplorate, diventando così uno degli importatori di riferimento per i vini di nicchia. Il portafoglio è cresciuto con gli anni, ormai quasi 40, di attività della Vos, che oggi conta vini, liquori e sakè provenienti da 16 Paesi e 5 continenti, servendo i clienti Horeca di New York, New Jersey e Philadelphia.

Arriviamo allora a quel che più ci incuriosisce. Quali sono i vini italiani di Schwartz?

DALLA VALLE D’AOSTA ALLA SICILIA

Curiosando sul sito della società, la prima referenza che incontriamo riguarda una vodka pugliese, Altamura. Chiaramente, è una stranezza di natura alfabetica, perché la classificazione per Paesi di origine parte sempre e comunque dalla prima lettera dell’alfabeto. Per chi non la conoscesse, si tratta di una vodka ottenuta dalla distillazione di antiche varietà di grano duro pugliese, ed è frutto dell’iniziativa di due imprenditori americani, Frank Grillo e Steve Acuna.

Visto che dopo la lettera A troviamo la B, ecco i vini di Badia di Morrona, la tenuta dei Conti Gaslini Alberti a Terricciola (Pisa) che, come la maggior parte delle cantine del territorio delle Colline pisane, ha ottenuto successo unendo il sangiovese ai vitigni internazionali a bacca rossa come cabernet sauvignon, cabernet franc e merlot. Sono cinque i vini di Badia di Morrona importati da Vos Selection e tra questi compare anche un vermentino (Felciaio).

Gli americani adorano lo spritz? Ed eccone uno, ready to drink, ma molto particolare… Si chiama C*zzimma ed è un prodotto analcolico, ideato dal sommelier Roberto Longo e, come svela il nome, intriso di napoletanità.

Dal sud all’estremo nord, a New York il nostro “idolo” Schwartz ha fatto conoscere anche i vini della piccola Valle d’Aosta della cantina di Diego Curtaz, i rossi torrette e di meun. Torniamo poi in Toscana, con quattro referenze della Fattoria di Petroio, azienda del Chianti Classico di proprietà della famiglia Lenzi: Vos distribuisce i loro tre Chianti Classico (base, riserva e gran selezione Poggio ai Grilli) e l’Igt Toscana Rosso Poggio al Mandorlo.

Diana Lenzi di Fattoria di Petroio
Diana Lenzi di Fattoria di Petroio

Torniamo nell’ambito dell’alcohol free con i prodotti di Feral, per poi scendere in Sicilia con i Marsala di Antichi Baronati, di cui Vos propone due etichette. Passando al Veneto, troviamo il pinot grigio Breganze de Le Colline di San Giorgio e l’immancabile Prosecco frizzante o spumante di La Jara. E sono ben otto le etichette di Lis Neris importate dalla società di New York, che fa della cantina friulana il produttore più importante per numero di referenze.

Poteva mancare il Brunello di Montalcino? Certamente no: sono due le etichette, entrambe della cantina Famiglia Maté. C’è spazio anche per la vernaccia nera spumantizzata marchigiana di Paris Rocchi, per due vini di Lucera di Paolo Petrilli, per i grandi vini piemontesi (cinque etichette, di cui due Barolo) di Poderi Roset e i tre cirò (bianco, rosato e rosso superiore) della Cantina Scala. Infine, il liquore Toccasana frutto della macerazione di 37 erbe.

TEMPO DI RIMBORSI?

È incredibile. La giustizia ha prevalso e ora posso tornare a fare la cosa che mi piace di più nella vita, cioè offrire agli americani i grandi vini italiani e di tutto il mondo”. Così parlò Schwartz, intervistato da Repubblica, all’indomani della sentenza della Corte Suprema.

La sentenza – aggiunge – dimostra perché gli Stati Uniti sono un grande Paese. Un piccolo imprenditore come me, trovandosi con la pistola puntata alla testa dal governo, può fare causa, essere ascoltato dal massimo tribunale e vincere. Ai miei clienti italiani lancio questo messaggio: la battaglia sarà ancora lunga e incerta, perché Trump vuole imporre altri dazi, ma stiamo vincendo”. E ora alza il tiro, parlando già di rimborsi. “Abbiamo pagato sulla base di un provvedimento illegale. Non sarà facile e ci vorrà tempo, ma se riusciremo a riavere indietro i nostri soldi potremo fare cose straordinarie, rilanciando le attività imprenditoriali”.

Click Here!

 

 

New York, la storia del commerciante di vini italiani che ha fermato i dazi

La sua impresa ha rischiato il collasso, invece di arrendersi, ha deciso di intentare la causa che poi è arrivata in Corte Suprema

Victor Schwartz, fondatore di VOS Selections, una piccola azienda familiare di importazione di vini e spiriti con sede a New York, è diventato il protagonista involontario di una delle vicende giudiziarie più discusse del 2026. La sua impresa, che da quarant’anni porta negli Stati Uniti vini artigianali da piccoli produttori di tutto il mondo (tra cui Francia, Italia e altri 16 paesi), ha rischiato il collasso quando il presidente Donald Trump ha imposto, nel 2025, dazi generalizzati e “reciproci” su quasi tutte le importazioni, definiti “Liberation Day tariffs”.

Questi dazi, basati sull’International Emergency Economic Powers Act del 1977, hanno aumentato i costi in modo imprevedibile, riducendo i margini già stretti del settore e costringendo Schwartz a tagliare le scorte del 25%. Invece di arrendersi, ha deciso di fare causa, diventando il principale querelante in un ricorso supportato dal Liberty Justice Center. La causa è arrivata fino alla Corte Suprema, che il 20 febbraio 2026 ha stabilito, con una sentenza 6-3, che Trump ha oltrepassato i suoi poteri: i dazi non potevano essere imposti invocando un’emergenza economica senza l’approvazione del Congresso.

Schwartz ha definito la vittoria “come vincere una medaglia d’oro” e un motivo di orgoglio per essere americano: «Una piccola impresa di New York può sfidare il potere più alto e vincere perché aveva ragione». La decisione ha annullato gran parte dei dazi più controversi, offrendo sollievo a migliaia di importatori, anche se Trump ha annunciato immediati nuovi dazi al 10% su base alternativa. La vicenda evidenzia il conflitto tra protezionismo e libero commercio, con un piccolo imprenditore newyorkese al centro della scena. – Marco Valerio Lo Prete

Click Here!

 

 

CNN: While corporate America stayed silent, a small wine importer risked his business to challenge Trump’s tariffs

Victor Schwartz started VOS Selections, a family-run wine importing business, 40 years ago.

When President Donald Trump announced plans to raise the nation’s effective tariff rate to levels not seen since 1930 last year, most CEOs were silent. They’d seen how opposing the president’s ambitions – let alone his signature economic policy – could prove even more costly than the policies he enacted.

With billions in annual revenue at stake, the leaders of multinational corporations generally stood still. But Victor Schwartz, the owner of small New York-based wine importer VOS Selections, took a giant step up.

Schwartz became the face of the fight to overturn Trump’s most sweeping tariffs — and he won, in a case that was decided by the Supreme Court on Friday.

He was initially hesitant to take on such a prominent role, he told CNN in an interview after the verdict on Friday.

“It was one thing to join the case, but then to be the lead plaintiff really gave me pause,” Schwartz said.

He stepped into that role after a family member put him in touch with the Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian-leaning nonprofit public-interest law firm. The Liberty Justice Center was preparing to challenge the unprecedented use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to unilaterally impose the tariffs — and after speaking with dozens of other small businesses, the group selected Schwartz as the lead plaintiff.

With corporate America largely on the sidelines, Schwartz said he felt like the “last line of defense” in putting a stop to the tariffs he viewed as a grave violation of executive powers and a threat to his family-run business.

So on April 14, 2025, the Liberty Justice Center filed the case titled VOS Selections, Inc. v. Trump. It was eventually consolidated with similar cases filed by 12 states and Learning Resources, an educational supply company.

He was victorious in the end, with the Supreme Court ruling that Trump’s sweeping emergency tariffs are illegal. But Schwartz’s win came at a personal cost.

“I am under constant attack through text, email and I can’t stop it,” he said. “It’s a little ugly. I guess it could be uglier. We keep our doors locked at the office.”‘We can’t just raise our prices’

Schwartz’s business imports wine and spirits from 16 countries. He is no stranger to the nation’s complex tariff code and how quickly rates can change, especially when Trump is in office. For instance, at one point last year, Trump threatened a 50% tariff on products from the European Union.

The economic environment now, especially in my industry, certainly is very unhealthy,” he said. “We had to go through every item in our book over since ‘Liberation Day,’ I think, at least four times.” (Trump coined April 2, 2025, the day he unveiled his now-overturned tariffs, as “Liberation Day.”)

Schwartz initially hesitated to be the lead plaintiff in a landmark case against Trump's sweeping tariffs. But with corporate America silent on the issue, he felt he was the “last line of defense."

“We can’t just raise our prices, and we just can’t pay it, unlike big companies that can just write a check,” he added. Since April, he estimates he’s had to pay at least six figures in tariffs.

The victory for Schwartz could mean he and other importers may be due hefty refunds totaling at least $134 billion, according to US Customs and Border Protection tariff revenue data as of December 14. But it remains to be seen exactly how that would work.

Meanwhile, Friday’s verdict won’t stop Trump from pushing other kinds of tariffs. Already, the president signed a 10% global tariff on Friday under a separate trade law and hinted at several other remedies aimed at restricting imports.

Schwartz said he’s worried about the other tariffs Trump could impose, but at least they would be much more restricted in scope and have time limits.

Fighting with the world’s most powerful person

The risk of going up against the world’s most powerful man wasn’t lost on Schwartz.

“We try to tamp down our fear but still recognize the challenges of what’s out there,” Schwartz said.

Even big corporations have gotten backlash for pointing out the costs of Trump’s tariffs. Amazon drew the administration’s ire following reports that the e-commerce giant planned to display how tariffs were impacting prices.

But after speaking with Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Trump said the company wouldn’t move forward with that. (A company spokesperson at the time, however, told CNN the move “was never a consideration for the main Amazon.”)

For Schwartz, positive support from other businesses all over the country and across the political spectrum has kept him going through the criticism.

Similarly, Rick Woldenberg, CEO of Learning Resources, has taken a lot of pride in challenging the Trump administration’s tariffs.

“The math was simple: I could not afford the tax that they wanted to hit me with,” Woldenberg told CNN. Unlike Schwartz, however, he’s had to cover his own legal fees, which totaled “seven figures.”

“I wanted my name in this lawsuit. I didn’t do anything wrong,” Woldenberg said.

Piggybacking on small businesses

Alan Morrison, who was the lead attorney in a case that challenged the blanket steel tariffs Trump put in place during his first term, understands why so many businesses have shied away from this kind of face-off.

“He threatens individual companies. He grants exceptions. All of this makes people feel very vulnerable,” Morrison said.

With the lawsuit Morrison led, large corporations got the benefit of “sitting back and waiting to see what happens” in the current tariff litigation.

In this case though, thousands of corporations, including Costco, have preemptively sued the US government in an effort to secure their stake in a refund without having to put their reputation on the line as Schwartz and Woldenberg have.

Schwartz doesn’t mind that corporate America can benefit from the risk he took: “So it takes a little match to start the fire. Okay, I’ll take that. I’m not going to feel badly about that. I’m going to feel proud about that.”

To celebrate the victory, Schwartz said he’ll be opening up an old bottle of Châteauneuf-du-Pape.

Click Here

‘We knew this was coming’: Wine importer at centre of legal battle reacts to new tariffs

Victor Schwartz, the owner of small wine importer VOS Selections, based in New York, became the face of the struggle to overturn the US president’s most sweeping tariffs.

On 14 April 2025, the Liberty Justice Center filed the case titled VOS Selections, Inc. v. Trump.

Schwartz won in the end, with the Supreme Court ruling that Trump’s sweeping emergency tariffs are illegal on Friday.

Speaking to Sky News, Schwartz said when he was introduced to the Liberty Justice Center, tariffs were “on everyone’s mind”.

Victor Schwartz on Sky News

Even before Trump was elected last year, the wine and spirits industry was concerned about what was going on, which is when they started to organise.

He said he joined the case and a few days later they really liked his story, and they asked him to become the lead claimant.

Commenting on the new 15% rate, Schwartz said “we all knew this was going to be coming anyway” – with Trump obviously wanting to find a new way to have tariffs.

But Schwartz was quick to point out: “We won this case in the highest court in America.”

Click Here!

 

 

Call Now Button