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.