On February 20, 2026, in a victory for American beer, wine, and spirits importers, the Supreme Court in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, 607 US ____, Slip Op., February 20, 2026 (“Learning Resources”) struck down President Trump’s imposition of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”). The Trump administration had used IEEPA to justify certain tariffs imposed on imported goods from various countries in 2025, including beer, wine and spirits. Despite the decision in the importers’ favor, no one is popping the Champagne quite yet. First, while the Court’s opinion invalidated the Trump administration’s IEEPA tariffs, it has no effect on the administrations’ ability to rely on other statutes to impose tariffs. Second, on the same day that the Supreme Court issued its decision, the President issued a proclamation imposing a 10% worldwide tariff under a different federal law (discussed in more detail belo

Afternoon Brief, February 20

Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump Tariffs on Imported Wine: The decision means that wine importers no longer face high duties when bringing in foreign wines and that domestic wineries will be spared tariffs on many of the goods they use in production...

Alcohol beverage importers may finally get their answer from the United States Supreme Court this week on the validity of the Trump Administration’s tariffs issued pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).[1] Recent news reports suggest that the Court’s answer may come as early as this Friday, when the Court is scheduled to issue opinions on pending cases. Based on the questions posed by both liberal and conservative justices during oral argument, many commentators expect the Court to conclude that the president exceeded his authority by invoking IEEPA to issue those tariffs.   There are, however, a lot of open questions beyond just the validity of the tariffs. Most importantly, if the Court finds the tariffs are invalid, will importers that have already paid the tariffs be entitled to refunds and what will the process be for getting those refunds. Questions also remain as to whether the case will be remanded to a lower court to determine the

Happy New Year! It is time to dust off the employee handbook, review your policies and procedures, and make sure they comply with all the new laws, regulations, and interpretations that have either already gone into effect or will in early 2024. Below, we have identified our “top 10(ish)” changes.  Please keep in mind there were hundreds of laws, regulations, and changes implemented at the local, state, and federal levels throughout 2023.  So, if you need a handbook/policy review or have any questions, please call.  1. California and Local Minimum Wage Raised – In addition to the gradual increase to minimum wage by the state, several Sonoma County cities have increased minimum wage beyond that required by the state.  Below is a table that describes the state and local city requirements:                     Locality Effective Date All Employers California 1/1/2024 $16.00 Santa Rosa 1/1/

With the start of the new year, it is time to dust off the employee handbook, review your policies and procedures, and make sure they comply with all the new laws, regulations, and interpretations that have either already gone into effect or will in early 2023. Below, we have identified our “top 10” changes. Please keep in mind there were hundreds of laws, regulations, and changes implemented at the local, state, and federal levels throughout 2022.  So, if you need a handbook/COVID-19 policy review or have any questions, please call. 1. California and Local Minimum Wage Raised – In addition to the gradual increase to minimum wage that has been in effect under California law, several Sonoma County cities have increased minimum wage beyond that required by the state. Below is a table that describes the state and local city requirements: Locality Effective Date Employers With 26 Or More Employees Employers With Less Than 26 Employees California 1/1/2023 $15.5

Arbitration Agreements May Be Your Friend Overview: On June 15, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an 8-1 decision on the Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana case.  As anticipated, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of forcing employees to bring claims against their employers on an individual basis and in arbitration. The decision represents a rare win for employers and provides clear support for employers to adopt an Arbitration Agreement for their employees. What Should Your Company Do? If you have 100 or more employees or are otherwise concerned about group-wide claims under the Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) or via class action, we suggest you contact our office to discuss the benefits and drawbacks of adopting an employee Arbitration Agreement.  Having a carefully crafted Arbitration Agreement can save your company thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars.  However, there are always considerations to be made when adopting such a po

The ability to stay on top of current changes and identify challenges facing the wine community early is critical for any business success. We, G3 Enterprises, partner with wineries, growers, suppliers and distributors and move quickly to implement solutions that meet the ever-changing needs of our customers. A recent example is the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to not hear the California Trucking Association’s challenge to AB 5. While the Court’s decision may come as a surprise by many, G3 had been proactively planning and preparing our operation readiness to undertake this ruling. As a result, we are already moving forward with our mitigation plan to ensure no customers will be impacted by any gap in service. This is also why G3 Enterprises continues to look out for ways to best serve customers and expand our services and offerings throughout the North and Central Coast regions giving our customers the experience, expertise and capabilities they want, when and where

On May 23, 2022, the California Supreme Court issued a decision in Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc., finding that meal period and rest break premium pay are considered wages.  This is in accordance with the purposes of the California Labor Code’s provisions regarding timely wage payment and wage statements.  As a result, the failure to pay and include meal period and rest break premium pay on wage statements can support additional penalties for wage statement violations under Labor Code Section 226 and waiting time penalties under Labor Code Section 203.  What We Thought The Law Was Under California law, employees are entitled to rest breaks and an unpaid meal period.  The number of breaks and periods depended on the number of hours worked but was typically two 10-minute rest breaks and one 30-minute unpaid meal period, per regular, 8-hour shift. An employer who failed to provide the requisite number or duration of the breaks during each workday