The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 to strike down the Trump administration’s tariffs, ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to impose them.The decision delivers relief to importers such as V.O.S. Selections, a New York–based wine importer that helped bring the case, ending years of unpredictable and costly duties on imported wines.The ruling could reshape the U.S. food and wine trade, easing prices on products ranging from European wines to imported ingredients such as cheeses and olive oils, while prompting new legal battles over tariff refunds.
The Supreme Court today ruled against the administration and struck down the Trump administration’s sweeping tariffs. The 6–3 decision, announced at 10:00 a.m., is a major blow to one of Trump’s signature policies. It was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, with Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh dissenting.
Why the Supreme Court’s tariff ruling matters: from vineyards to restaurants and beyond
One of the plaintiffs in the conjoined cases (two separate cases challenging the tariffs were joined by the Court) is V.O.S. Selections, a noted New York-based wine importer. The tariffs obviously reach far beyond wine, but they’ve been a blow to anyone who makes a living importing wines from Europe (where tariffs are currently 15%), South Africa (30%), and beyond.
European wines account for roughly 16% of total U.S. wine volume and 24% of revenue, according to data from the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America’s SipSource. V.O.S. owner Victor Schwartz said when bringing the case to court, “[In Spring of 2025], thousands of American small businesses like mine were thrown into chaos. The administration’s tariff taxes — which my business was forced to pay — threatened our survival. These duties were not like past tariffs set by Congress, which we could plan around. These new tariffs were arbitrary, unpredictable, and bad business.”
In January, Trump threatened tariffs as high as 200% on French wines after French President Emmanuel Macron was reported to be unwilling to join Trump’s proposed “Board of Peace.” And those threats have affected sales of U.S. wines and spirits to other countries, most significantly in Canada, where there is a broad refusal to stock U.S. wines and spirits on store shelves.
One key thing to note is that tariffs are assessed at the point of entry into the U.S. They are paid by the importer — typically a U.S. company — rather than the winery or producer overseas. Their effect on the wine business as a whole runs through the retail and hospitality sectors. Some $24 billion of European wine alone are sold in the U.S. annually; that revenue creates jobs not just at importing companies, but also in wholesale sales, wine stores, restaurants, and more.
Nor do the tariffs affect only wine. Because they apply to trade with more than 100 countries, many food products are affected, including imported cheeses, olive oil, and chocolate — the list is long. There are also hidden costs in other ways, such as tariffs on glass, aluminum cans, labels, glue, and more. The tariffs affect not only the cost of the finished product but also other parts of the supply chain.
The constitutional question behind Trump’s tariff strategy
The ruling was a remarkable setback for the Trump administration. The case turned on the justices’ interpretation of a 1977 law called IEEPA (the International Emergency Economic Powers Act), which the administration argued allowed the executive branch to impose sweeping tariffs; constitutionally, the power to tariff resides with the legislative branch.
The summary language of the decision is specific: “…the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed in relevant part, concluding that IEEPA’s grant of authority to ‘regulate…importation’ did not authorize the challenged tariffs, which ‘are unbounded in scope, amount, and duration.’ Held: IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The judgment in No. 24–1287 is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; the judgment in No. 25–250 is affirmed.”
Trump, it should be noted, is the first president to try to invoke the IEEPA to impose tariffs. In the past, the law has been used only to impose sanctions on U.S. adversaries or to freeze their assets. In essence, the administration appeared to treat all trading partners as adversaries in an ongoing economic “emergency.”
How the court viewed expanding presidential power: “A one-way ratchet”
As the wine editor for Food & Wine, I had the opportunity, as a member of the press, to attend the arguments at the court in November. At the time, I was surprised by the skepticism many of the justices expressed toward the administration’s case — not just the liberal justices, which was to be expected, but also the conservative justices: Roberts, Barrett, and, particularly, Gorsuch.
As Justice Neil Gorsuch stated in response to one line of questioning, “So Congress, as a practical matter, can’t get this power back once it’s handed it over to the President. It’s a one-way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people’s elected representatives.”
Justice Barrett expressed similar skepticism about using an ongoing “emergency” as justification for the levies: “These [tariffs] are kind of across the board. And so is it your contention that every country need[s] to be tariffed because of threats to the defense and industrial base? I mean, Spain, France? I could see it with some countries, but explain to me why as many countries needed to be subject to the reciprocal tariff policy as are.”
For these reasons, it seemed at least possible (though perhaps unlikely) that the Court would rule against the administration, as it has.
In his majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts writes, “The president asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope. In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it.”
What the SCOTUS tariff ruling means for you
If you buy wine, dine out, or shop for specialty foods, here’s what could change. The Supreme Court’s decision removes a major source of trade uncertainty — but it doesn’t automatically reset prices tomorrow. What happens next depends on refund battles, supply-chain adjustments, and whether the administration pursues new tariffs under different authority.
Imported wine prices may stabilize — and could eventually ease. Retailers and restaurants have been pricing around unpredictable duties; with those struck down, future shipments may face fewer surprise cost spikes.Don’t expect instant discounts. Even if importers receive refunds, it can take months for pricing to adjust as existing inventory works its way through warehouses, distributors, and wine lists.Specialty grocery items could see less volatility. Imported cheeses, olive oil, chocolate, and other European pantry staples were also affected by tariff pressures, and pricing swings may now moderate.Uncertainty isn’t gone. The administration has signaled it may explore other legal avenues to impose tariffs, meaning trade policy — and its impact on food and wine prices — could shift again.
After the tariffs fall: refund battles and the future of trade policy
What lies ahead is unknown. Given the ruling, there will undoubtedly be protracted legal battles over refunds from the U.S. government for duties already paid by importers — a total sum likely to exceed $150 billion. Retailing giant Costco already filed a lawsuit (in late 2025) against the administration in the Court of International Trade, arguing that the tariffs were unauthorized, a claim the Supreme Court has now confirmed. Other lawsuits are sure to follow.
At the same time, the United States Trade Representative, Jamieson Greer, is on record saying that after a ruling against the government, the administration would seek to use other options to keep tariffs as part of Trump’s trade policy. Trump said this morning at a White House breakfast with state governors that the ruling is a “disgrace” but that he has a “backup plan.”
Harmon Skurnik of Skurnik Wines & Spirits, a major importer and wholesaler of fine wines, said, “Obviously, we view the Supreme Court decision as good news. But we remain concerned that the Administration will soon use other tools to impose tariffs. For example, there is a statute from the 1970s that says that the President can impose ‘temporary’ tariffs up to 15% for up to 150 days on countries with which we have a trade deficit. We’re happy about today, but still concerned about tomorrow.”
Despite that concern, there’s a lot of relief and a thrill of victory among U.S. wine importers about this decision. Contacted by Food & Wine immediately after the decision was announced, Victor Schwartz of V.O.S. said, “I think I know what it feels like to win a Gold Medal. It is an unbelievable feeling on so many levels. And such an important win for our industry.”
Dining and Cooking