The Supreme Court of the United States on Friday struck down President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, delivering a significant setback to a central pillar of his economic agenda and adding a new layer of uncertainty for agriculture.
In a 6-3 decision, the court invalidated tariffs enacted under the 1977 emergency powers statute, including the broad “reciprocal” tariffs Trump placed on nearly every country. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, concluded that the Constitution “very clearly” grants Congress the authority to impose taxes, including tariffs. “The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch,” Roberts wrote.
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
“The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy. But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful,” Kavanaugh wrote.
The majority did not address whether companies could receive refunds for the billions of dollars already paid under the tariffs. According to federal data, the Treasury Department had collected more than $133 billion from import taxes imposed under the emergency powers statute as of December. Businesses have already begun lining up in lower courts seeking reimbursement.
While the ruling blocks tariffs under IEEPA, it does not prevent the administration from using other trade authorities, such as Section 232 or sector-specific statutes, to pursue additional duties. Administration officials have signaled they intend to keep elements of the broader tariff framework in place under alternative legal pathways.
The decision lands as agricultural retailers and farm groups are closely tracking a second major policy front in Washington: renewed momentum on the Farm Bill.
In an interview on Agriculture of America, Daren Coppock, president and CEO of the Agricultural Retailers Association, said retailers are watching both trade policy and farm legislation for signs of stability heading into 2026.
Coppock noted that House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn Thompson has released updated Farm Bill text that closely mirrors last year’s proposal. While several commodity-related provisions were addressed in a broader legislative package last summer, additional items remain unresolved.
“Getting the commodity stuff done early was important to the farm groups,” Coppock said, noting there are still additional commodity-related items in the current bill that matter to farmers.
The political path forward remains complicated. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program provisions were handled earlier in a way that did not draw Democratic support, and those provisions are absent from the current Farm Bill draft. Coppock questioned where bipartisan votes will ultimately come from but said he hopes momentum can be sustained.
For agricultural retailers, one top priority is reaffirming the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act as the leading federal pesticide regulatory framework. Coppock said proposed language would clarify that the Environmental Protection Agency’s label is the controlling authority, preventing states from imposing requirements that conflict with federally approved labeling while still allowing states to determine product registration within their borders.
“It doesn’t really change the status quo in my view, it just reaffirms it,” he said.
The issue has gained prominence amid litigation and state-level efforts to require additional warning labels on products such as glyphosate. Coppock argued that reaffirming federal authority under FIFRA would provide regulatory certainty for manufacturers, retailers and farmers, and avoid conflicting state requirements not grounded in federal scientific review.
Beyond the Farm Bill debate, retailers are weighing the implications of the Supreme Court’s tariff ruling for market access and input costs.
Coppock said the decision specifically affects tariffs imposed under IEEPA and those tied to a national emergency declaration. Duties enacted under other authorities remain in place, leaving uncertainty about how trade policy will evolve.
“There’s certainly plenty of sources of uncertainty, and this will be one of them,” Coppock said, pointing to ongoing volatility in export markets and input pricing.
He referenced recent remarks from officials at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Outlook Conference, where trade officials outlined efforts to expand market access. While progress has been made on certain agreements, Coppock cautioned that new deals are unlikely to fully offset lost market share in key destinations such as China for commodities like soybeans.
Farm and trade advocacy groups also reacted swiftly to the ruling.
Farmers for Free Trade released a statement from Executive Director Brian Kuehl welcoming the decision.
“Today’s Supreme Court decision is an important step toward restoring predictability and the rule of law in American trade policy. Tariffs imposed under IEEPA have been devastating for American farmers, driving up costs for inputs like fertilizer, equipment, and parts while triggering retaliatory tariffs that cut off critical export markets. Farmers have been caught in the crossfire, paying more for what they need while losing access to the customers they depend on.
“Despite today’s ruling, we remain deeply concerned that the administration will reimpose tariffs through other means. Any new approach would likely invite the same retaliation from our trading partners that has already caused so much damage to American farmers. Tariffs hurt farmers on both ends, raising what they pay and reducing where they can sell.
“The focus now must be on restoring stable trade relationships and expanding market access for American agricultural products, not finding new ways to harm farmers with tariffs. We urge the administration to work with Congress on comprehensive trade solutions that open markets rather than close them, and to resist the temptation to replace one problematic tariff authority with another. American farmers are the most productive in the world, but they need access to markets, not more barriers and retaliation.”
Congressman Adrian Smith (NE-03), Chairman of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, emphasized Congress’ role following the ruling.
“Since day one, President Trump has been committed to leveling the playing field for American farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and workers. In light of the Supreme Court’s decision, we must ensure our trading partners uphold the market access commitments already secured and continue advancing policies which promote fair competition worldwide.
“Nebraska’s farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers create world-leading products and deserve reliable access to global markets. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade for the House Ways and Means Committee, I am committed to working with the administration to deliver long-term certainty through comprehensive and enforceable trade agreements. The President has made clear his intention to use every available tool to secure strong deals, but only Congress can ensure that these agreements provide lasting stability beyond any single administration.”
The International Fresh Produce Association also welcomed the clarification on IEEPA authority.
“IFPA welcomes the Supreme Court’s decision clarifying the limits of IEEPA and reaffirming that broad, country-specific tariffs fall outside its intended scope. The global trade of fresh produce is essential to the health and well-being of people in every nation, and today’s ruling helps restore predictability to a uniquely complex, seasonally driven marketplace.
“While targeted tariffs can be a tool for addressing inequities between trading partners, the broad application of this blunt instrument can disrupt markets, raise consumer costs, and place unnecessary strain on growers and producers across the supply chain. IFPA’s successful advocacy for key exemptions in 2025 underscored the importance of protecting access to fresh fruits and vegetables that cannot be grown domestically at scale or year-round.
“IFPA does not believe tariffs should be used as a default response to every trade concern facing the United States, nor should this ruling simply prompt a shift to other tariff authorities. Instead, IFPA hopes this ruling allows policymakers to move beyond broad tariff actions and continue working toward lower trade barriers that ensure affordable access to fresh produce and floral products.
“While tariffs have been one challenge for the fresh produce and floral sectors, IFPA appreciates the administration’s commitment to easing regulatory burdens and supporting American agriculture and looks forward to working with policymakers on long-term solutions—such as equitable trade agreements, regulatory reform, and workforce stability—that strengthen food security and ensure affordable, accessible produce for all families.”
As Congress works to finalize remaining Farm Bill provisions and the administration considers next steps on trade, agricultural retailers say two themes dominate the conversation heading into 2026: regulatory clarity and reliable access to global markets.