The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a temporary blow to the Trump administration’s use of tariffs, with the President responding to the decision with a tariff plan under different legal authority, teeing up further volatility and uncertainty for the broader agriculture sector.
On Feb. 20, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision that the Trump administration does not have the authorisation to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 91 Stat. 1626.
President Donald Trump responded to the Supreme Court decision, saying he “would sign an order to impose a 10% global tariff, under Section 122,” in a Truth Social post. Then, the President stated that he would raise the tariff level to 15% on Feb. 21, the day following the Supreme Court decision.
The Supreme Court decision did not rule out the use of other authorities, like Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 or Section 122 or 301(b) of the Trade Act of 1974, to impose tariffs. The president can use Section 122 to temporarily impose import surcharges and limits on goods entering the country, as high as 15% for up to 150 days, without congressional approval, as stated in the law.
The American Soybean Association reacts to tariff decision
U.S. soybean farmers became central to the tariff debate, as many growers experienced higher input costs and uncertain market access, including the Chinese market. The Trump administration responded to the agriculture volatility by providing $12 billion in one-time bridge payments, as AgTechNavigator previously reported.
Ahead of Trump’s remarks on the Section 122 tariffs, the American Soybean Association (ASA) was quick to respond to the Supreme Court decision on tariffs, advocating for the Trump administration to abstain from using other means to impose tariffs.
“The case at the Supreme Court has been closely followed by soybean farmers who have seen the cost of inputs rise over the past year due to tariffs. U.S. soybean growers are reliant upon imports for critical farming tools like fertilizer, seeds, pesticides, and agriculture equipment,” said Scott Metzger, ASA president and Ohio farmer, as shared in a statement.
He added, “Moving forward, certainty and dependable market access are essential for U.S. soy to remain competitive globally. 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. We look forward to working with the Trump Administration and Congress to strengthen market opportunities and support a stable farm economy for generations to come.”
Farmer sentiment started 2026 on a sour note
The tariff decision comes as U.S. farmers face another challenging year in 2026. Farmer sentiment in January reached the lowest point since October 2024, as half of 400 producers surveyed said that their farm operations were worse off than a year ago, according to Purdue University’s Ag Economy barometer.
Additionally, U.S. farmers were souring on the idea that tariffs would be beneficial to the ag economy. Most farmers (54%) said that tariffs would strengthen the ag economy in Dec. 2025, but that was a decline from 70% who said the same in April 2025, according to Purdue University’s Ag Economy Barometer.
Editor’s note: This article may be updated with additional commentary and perspectives, as they are made available. To share insights on the Supreme Court’s tariff decision, email AgTechNavigator’s Americas Editor Ryan Daily at ryan.daily@wrbm.com.
