Farms.com Home   Ag Industry News

U.S. ag groups react to Supreme Court tariff decision

U.S. ag groups react to Supreme Court tariff decision
Feb 20, 2026
By Diego Flammini
Assistant Editor, North American Content, Farms.com

The Supreme Court ruled President Trump exceeded his authority

Reaction from American ag industry groups is trickling in after the Supreme Court made its ruling about President Trump’s tariffs.

To recap, on Feb. 20 the highest court in the U.S. ruled 6-3 that President Trump didn’t have tariff power under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

“We hold that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the decision.

It was under IEEPA President Trump placed fentanyl tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China, and tariffs on countries that import Russian oil, or export oil to Cuba, for example.

With the Supreme Court’s decision, many of the administration’s tariffs are eliminated.

Here’s what U.S. farm groups are saying about the court’s ruling.

Farmers for Free Trade called the court’s decision a step towards restoring predictability and restoring the rule of law in American trade policy.

“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,” Executive Director Brian Kuehl said in a statement.

The American Soybean Association (ASA) says in a time of high input costs, trade policies need to support farmers.

“Moving forward, certainty and dependable market access are essential for U.S. soy to remain competitive globally,” Scott Metzger, president of the ASA, said in a statement. “Because farmers are caught in a cost-price squeeze and ag input costs remain high, we urge the President to refrain from imposing tariffs on agricultural inputs using other authorities.”

The International Fresh Produce Association also responded to the court’s decision.

Tariffs should be targeted, not all encompassing, the organization said.

“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,” the organization said, adding that the court decision helps restore predictability.

 


Trending Video

$400m loss to save $3.8m? The real cost of closing Canada's research farms | Agri cmte, 10 Feb 2026

Video: $400m loss to save $3.8m? The real cost of closing Canada's research farms | Agri cmte, 10 Feb 2026

Officials are forced to defend cutting a historic $3.8 million research farm while the government simultaneously funded an $8.5 million cricket factory that went bankrupt. Is this evidence of an incoherent spending strategy? Watch the full committee clash to see the government's official rationale.

A heated discussion erupts over the logic behind the government's cuts to AAFC research farms in Lacombe, Indian Head, and Quebec City. MPs question why core, decades-old scientific infrastructure is being deemed 'not core' while other, controversial programs were funded. The Deputy Minister is repeatedly pressed for the actual net savings of the decision versus the expense of relocating research programs.