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