A small New York wine importer, a Utah pipe manufacturer, and a handful of other small businesses just rewrote the rules of American trade policy. Their lawsuit, V.O.S. Selections v. United States, ended in February 2026 with the Supreme Court striking down the largest tariff program in modern history. Billions of dollars in refunds are now in motion, and the legal landscape for every company that imports materials, components, or finished goods has changed.
For Florida manufacturers and distributors, this case is more than a headline. It is a refund opportunity with hard deadlines, a warning about the contract disputes now working through supply chains, and proof that businesses of any size can hold their own in high-stakes litigation.
Key Takeaways
For business owners pressed for time, here is what matters most:
- In 2025, the President imposed sweeping “reciprocal” and “trafficking” tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 emergency powers statute.
- Five small businesses sued, arguing IEEPA never gave the President tariff power. They won at every level.
- On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court agreed in a 6 to 3 decision. The IEEPA tariffs are unlawful.
- U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is now processing refunds, but refunds are not automatic. Importers must file claims, and deadlines apply.
- Tariffs did not disappear. The administration replaced them using other statutes, so cost volatility and the contract disputes that come with it are here to stay.
How Five Small Businesses Took On the Tariffs
In April 2025, V.O.S. Selections, a family-owned wine and spirits importer, joined four other small businesses, including a plastic pipe manufacturer, an educational electronics kit maker, a fishing tackle retailer, and a cycling apparel company, in suing the federal government at the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT). Their argument was simple: IEEPA lets the President “regulate” imports during a national emergency, but it never mentions tariffs, duties, or taxes. Only Congress can impose those.
The companies were not multinational giants with armies of lawyers. They were businesses facing the same problem many of our clients face: a sudden, externally imposed cost increase that threatened margins, contracts, and in some cases, survival. Instead of absorbing the hit, they litigated.
What the Courts Decided
The case moved fast by litigation standards, and the plaintiffs won three times in a row.
The trade court ruled first. On May 28, 2025, a three-judge CIT panel held that IEEPA does not authorize the worldwide reciprocal tariffs or the fentanyl-related trafficking tariffs, in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 25-66.
The Federal Circuit affirmed. On August 29, 2025, the full en banc Federal Circuit agreed that the tariffs exceeded the President’s authority under IEEPA, although it sent the question of remedies back to the trade court.
The Supreme Court closed the loop. On February 20, 2026, in a 6 to 3 opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held in the consolidated cases of Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The Constitution gives the taxing power, including tariffs, to Congress. When Congress wants to hand the President tariff authority, it says so expressly. IEEPA never does.
Why This Case Changes the Game
Three takeaways matter for business owners, even those who never touch an import entry form.
Courts will police trade authority. For decades, presidents of both parties stretched trade statutes with little judicial pushback. V.O.S. Selections shows that courts will read those statutes closely and will strike down programs that exceed them, even programs collecting billions of dollars a month.
Small plaintiffs can win big cases. The lead plaintiffs were small businesses. They identified a clean legal question, filed in the right forum, and saw it through. That is a useful reminder for any company weighing whether a legal fight is worth it. The same calculation applies when your business is on the receiving end of a claim, which is why an early, clear-eyed case assessment is the foundation of effective lawsuit defense.
Trade policy will keep shifting, and litigation follows volatility. Every swing in tariff policy reprices contracts mid-performance. That produces exactly the kinds of sales contract disputes and pricing fights that end up in court.
The Refund Window Is Open, But It Is Not Automatic
The dollars at stake are enormous. According to figures CBP has cited in connection with its IEEPA duty refund guidance, roughly 330,000 importers paid or deposited an estimated $166 billion in IEEPA duties across more than 53 million entries. In April 2026, CBP launched its CAPE refund tool inside the ACE portal so importers of record and their licensed customs brokers can submit refund declarations electronically.
Three practical points deserve attention:
- You must come forward. CBP is not mailing checks to every importer. A refund requires an importer (or its broker) to identify the entries, file the declaration, and have valid banking details on file with CBP.
- Deadlines are real. Depending on the status of an entry, preserving rights may involve administrative protests with CBP, post-summary corrections, or a lawsuit at the CIT, each with its own clock. Older, finally liquidated entries are the subject of ongoing court fights, and waiting can mean losing.
- The refund may not be yours alone. If you passed tariff costs through to customers, or your suppliers passed them to you, contracts will decide who keeps the money. Expect demands, setoffs, and lawsuits over exactly this question.
Distributors should also remember that a refund claim is an asset. Like any receivable, it can be the subject of collection efforts when a counterparty breaches a supply contract tied to those funds.
Tariffs Did Not Go Away
The Supreme Court decided who can impose tariffs, not whether the United States will have them. Within hours of the ruling, the administration terminated the IEEPA tariffs and imposed a temporary replacement tariff on most imports under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a never-before-used statute that caps tariffs at 15 percent and 150 days unless Congress extends them. That bridge tariff is currently set to lapse in late July 2026.
Meanwhile, the long-standing Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum, autos, and other products, and the Section 301 tariffs on Chinese goods, were never part of the case and remain in force. The administration has announced new Section 301 investigations targeting most major trading partners, which can support new tariffs that rest on firmer legal ground.
The practical message for manufacturers, distributors, and the transportation and logistics companies that serve them: plan for continued tariff turbulence, not a return to 2024 pricing.
What This Means for Florida Manufacturers and Distributors
Tariff whiplash creates legal exposure in both directions. Your business may have claims to assert, and it may face claims from others. The most common flashpoints we see:
- Pricing and surcharge disputes. Contracts signed during the tariff spike often contain tariff surcharges, price escalation clauses, or vague “cost increase” language. Now that the IEEPA duties are gone, customers want those surcharges back, and suppliers want to keep them. Whether a clause survives depends on its wording, which is why dispute resolution and pricing provisions deserve a hard look before the fight starts.
- Refund ownership fights. Importers of record hold the refund rights, but downstream buyers who actually bore the cost will argue the money belongs to them. Expect breach of contract and unjust enrichment theories on both sides. Our breach of contract litigation team handles exactly these disputes.
- Supply chain performance claims. Companies that cut over to new suppliers, rerouted freight, or renegotiated terms during the tariff period now face claims over cancelled orders and abandoned commitments. Supply chain management disputes involving carriers, 3PLs, and intermodal providers are rising in step.
- Inventory and liquidation pressure. Businesses that over-ordered ahead of tariff deadlines are now moving excess inventory through liquidation and reverse logistics channels, a sector with its own legal traps we have written about before.
If a counterparty sues your business over any of these issues, the first 30 days matter most. Our lawsuit defense practice focuses on early moves that protect leverage: calendaring deadlines, preserving documents, tendering insurance, and assessing whether the case can be defeated early or resolved on favorable terms.
Practical Steps to Take Now
- Inventory your tariff exposure. Pull entry records for 2025 and early 2026 and identify every entry where IEEPA duties were paid, whether you were the importer of record or paid through a supplier.
- File or preserve refund claims promptly. Coordinate with your customs broker and counsel on CAPE declarations, protests, and any needed CIT filings before deadlines run.
- Audit tariff language in your contracts. Know what your surcharge, escalation, force majeure, and pass-through clauses actually say before a customer or supplier tests them.
- Document everything. Refund fights and pricing disputes will turn on records of who paid what and what was promised.
- Get ahead of disputes. A demand letter answered early is cheaper than a lawsuit answered late. If you have already been sued, engage experienced business litigation counsel immediately.
How Jimerson Birr Helps
Jimerson Birr represents manufacturers, distributors, importers, and logistics businesses across Florida and beyond in tariff-driven contract disputes, refund ownership fights, and lawsuit defense. We also serve as outside general counsel for small and growing businesses across a wide range of industries, helping clients structure contracts that survive the next policy swing rather than litigate the last one.
V.O.S. Selections proves that trade policy is now courtroom business. Whether your company needs to pursue what it is owed or defend what it has built, our attorneys can help you act before the deadlines do. Contact Jimerson Birr at 904-389-0050 to schedule a consultation.