The United States Supreme Court recently issued a 7-2&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1068_n7ip.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">decision</a>&nbsp;in&nbsp;Monsanto v.&nbsp;Durnell,&nbsp;holding&nbsp;that state‑law failure‑to‑warn claims related to pesticide labeling are expressly preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The case arose after John Durnell, a longtime Roundup user diagnosed with non‑Hodgkin’s lymphoma, sued Monsanto in Missouri state court, alleging the company failed to warn consumers about cancer risks. Monsanto argued that FIFRA preempted such claims because federal law requires manufacturers to use EPA‑approved labels—and Roundup’s label, repeatedly reviewed and approved by the EPA since 1974, contains no cancer warning.&nbsp;



Justice Kavanaugh’s majority opinion emphasized FIFRA’s “uniformity” clause, which prohibits states from imposing labeling requirements “in addition to or different from” federal requirements. Because&nbsp;Mr.&nbsp;Durnell’s&nbsp;failure-to-warn&nbsp;claim would require Monsanto to add a cancer warning not included on the EPA‑approved label, the Court held the claim constituted an additional labeling requirement and was therefore preempted.&nbsp;The majority&nbsp;relied&nbsp;heavily on the fact that this was a safety claim, and during the registration process, the EPA thoroughly reviews all safety-related issues.&nbsp;&nbsp;The majority stressed that EPA’s label approval reflects its determination that the label is not misleading and contains all necessary warnings; allowing states to impose additional requirements would undermine FIFRA’s regulatory structure.&nbsp;



Justice Thomas concurred but questioned FIFRA’s constitutionality, arguing Congress exceeded its Commerce Clause authority and improperly delegated legislative power to the EPA.&nbsp;He also seemed to question whether agriculture in general could be regulated pursuant to the Commerce Clause.&nbsp;&nbsp;



Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Gorsuch, dissented.&nbsp;The dissent believed&nbsp;Mr.&nbsp;Durnell’s claim was equivalent to FIFRA’s misbranding standard, not “different from” it. Because EPA had not set specific cancer‑related warning requirements, she contended that Missouri’s failure‑to‑warn law merely duplicated federal obligations. The dissent emphasized that registration is only prima facie evidence of compliance and does not eliminate the possibility that a registered pesticide may still be misbranded. Jackson also rejected implied preemption, noting Monsanto could comply with both federal and state law by halting sales or seeking EPA approval for a revised label.&nbsp;



To read a more detailed summary,&nbsp;<a href="https://agrilife.org/texasaglaw/2026/06/26/us-supreme-court-failure-to-warn-claims-preempted-by-fifra/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">click here</a>.&nbsp;



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



Recommended citation format: Lashmet, Tiffany Dowell. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/25/united-states-supreme-court-holds-roundup-failure-to-warn-claims-preempted-by-federal-law/">United States Supreme Court Holds Roundup Failure to Warn Claims Preempted by Federal Law.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(29.5). July 17, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/25/united-states-supreme-court-holds-roundup-failure-to-warn-claims-preempted-by-federal-law/">Permalink</a>

United States Supreme Court Holds Roundup Failure to Warn Claims Preempted by Federal Law 

Established following the May 2026 summit between President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, the U.S.-China Board of Trade is a new bilateral initiative aimed at rebuilding commercial ties between the U.S. and China by reducing trade barriers, addressing tariff disputes, and encouraging trade between countries (USTR, 2026). Implementation details, including which products will be covered, how procurement commitments will be measured, and how compliance will be enforced, are still being finalized.&nbsp;



In a recent bipartisan letter to U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, members of Congress urged the Administration to explicitly include “American hardwood lumber” in the newly established framework, to ensure that China’s procurement commitments prioritize U.S. hardwood lumber. The lawmakers argue that restoring access to the Chinese market is critical for the U.S. hardwood industry. As noted in the letter, the industry has suffered nearly $10 billion in lost sales and a 48% decline in domestic hardwood lumber production since the onset of the U.S. trade war with China in 2018. See the following link for a full copy of the letter:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.shaheen.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/ustr_hardwood_letter.pdf">https://www.shaheen.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/ustr_hardwood_letter.pdf</a>.&nbsp;



The importance of this letter becomes clearer when viewed in the context of the hardwood industry and declining export sales, especially to China.&nbsp;



The U.S. is one of the world’s leading producers and exporters of hardwood logs and lumber, with exports providing an important source of income for forest landowners, sawmills, and rural communities. Hardwood exports are particularly significant in the U.S. South, a region characterized by abundant timber resources and a strong dependence on international markets for sales. For instance, the largest hardwood export category, oak lumber (red and white), was valued at $873 million in 2025, led by exports from the South ($327 million) where North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, and Kentucky are top suppliers. It is important to note that prior to the 2018 trade war, U.S. oak lumber exports were $1.3 billion. In 2017, China accounted for more than 60% of U.S. oak lumber exports. This decreased to 34% in 2025 (USDA, 2026).



Trade data show just how important the Chinese market has been for southern hardwood producers (See Figure 1). Exports of hardwood products from the South experienced strong growth after 2010, driven largely by rising demand from China. Southern hardwood lumber exports to all destinations increased from roughly $500 million in 2010 to more than $1.2 billion in 2017, while exports to China alone grew from less than $200 million to nearly $700 million over the same period. This pattern highlights the central role that China played in expanding markets for southern hardwood producers. Hardwood log exports also benefited from Chinese demand, although growth was more modest than for lumber.



The 2018 trade war marked a clear turning point. Following retaliatory tariffs imposed by China, hardwood lumber exports to China fell sharply, dropping by nearly half between 2018 and 2019. Exports have never returned to their pre-trade-war levels and continued to decline through 2025. Lumber exports from the South to all countries also trended downward after 2018, suggesting that losses in the Chinese market were only partially offset by sales to other destinations. Southern hardwood log exports have also weakened, although they have generally been more stable than lumber exports. Overall, the figure shows how deeply the southern hardwood industry depended on China before 2018 and how the trade war fundamentally altered exports.&nbsp;



Rebuilding trade with China could help strengthen the southern hardwood industry. Among overseas markets, China emerged as one of the most important destinations for U.S. hardwood products. Expanding furniture manufacturing and increasing demand for high-quality wood materials contributed to a substantial rise in U.S. hardwood exports to China. As a result, many U.S. hardwood producers became increasingly reliant on Chinese demand. These exports supported employment, investment, and forest management activities throughout southern states.&nbsp;



Figure 1.&nbsp;U.S. Hardwood Exports to All Countries and China: 2010-2025



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="896" height="416" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/6.29.4-1.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44489" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/6.29.4-1.png 896w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/6.29.4-1-768x357.png 768w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 896px) 100vw, 896px" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">Note: Hardwood lumber exports are based on all Harmonized System (HS) classifications from 4407.91 – 4407.99, and hardwood logs are based on HS 4403.91 – HS 4403.99. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service (2026)</figcaption></figure>



For more information:



Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) (2026).&nbsp;USTR Seeks Public Comment on the Scope and Operation of a Mechanism to Promote Balanced and Reciprocal Trade with China. Press Release (June 02, 2026).&nbsp;<a href="https://ustr.gov/about/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2026/june/ustr-seeks-public-comment-scope-and-operation-mechanism-promote-balanced-and-reciprocal-trade-china">https://ustr.gov/about/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2026/june/ustr-seeks-public-comment-scope-and-operation-mechanism-promote-balanced-and-reciprocal-trade-china</a>



U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (2026).&nbsp;Global Agricultural Trade System. Foreign Agricultural Service.&nbsp;<a href="https://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/default.aspx">https://apps.fas.usda.gov/gats/default.aspx</a>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



Recommended citation format: Muhammad, Andrew. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/25/can-the-u-s-south-regain-its-hardwood-market-in-china/">Can the U.S. South Regain Its Hardwood Market in China?</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(29.4). July 16, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/25/can-the-u-s-south-regain-its-hardwood-market-in-china/">Permalink</a>

Can the U.S. South Regain Its Hardwood Market in China?

The July World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report has a reputation as a quiet one for most crops. The reason is timing: USDA releases the Acreage report at the end of June (Rabinowitz, 2026), and the World Agricultural Outlook Board folds those acreage numbers into the July WASDE while leaving yield projections untouched until the August surveys begin. Wheat is the exception, receiving its largest yield revision of the year in July. Because the acreage numbers are already public, prices tend to move when the Acreage report is released, not when the WASDE repeats it two weeks later.



Figure 1 shows the average absolute revision to acreage and yield in each monthly WASDE from the 2010/11 marketing year through the most recent report. The pattern is clear: the largest acreage revisions cluster in July with small changes to yield estimates when the Acreage report enters the balance sheet, and the largest yield revisions arrive in August with the first survey-based estimates.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;



On the supply side, the July 2026 WASDE mostly followed the script. Acreage changed for soybeans (+0.8%), wheat (-2.5%), cotton (+2.2%), and rice (-12.9%), while corn acreage was left unchanged. Yield revisions were modest: wheat (+1.9%), cotton (+0.7%), and rice (+0.2%), with corn and soybean yields held at trend. Adding in beginning stocks and imports, total corn supply fell 120 million bushels (-0.7%), soybean supply rose 30 million bushels (+0.6%), wheat supply fell 22 million bushels (-0.8%), cotton supply rose 0.4 million bales (+2.3%), and rice supply fell 20.9 million cwt (-7.6%).



On the demand side, corn and soybean total use increased 50 million bushels (+0.3%) and 30 million bushels (+0.7%), both on stronger exports. Rice was the opposite: USDA cut total use 9 million cwt (-3.9%), mostly domestic, to absorb part of the smaller crop.



The net result shows up in ending stocks. Carryout fell 8.7% for corn (moderately bullish), 3.0% for wheat (mildly bullish), and 27.8% for rice (strongly bullish), while cotton carryout rose 10.8% (bearish) and soybean carryout was unchanged (neutral).



The quiet reputation of the July WASDE is really a statement about yields, not about the balance sheet. The report rarely delivers new information because the June 30 Acreage and Grain Stocks reports have already done the talking, but as this month shows, what they say can be substantial. Rice supplies tightened dramatically, corn carryout fell on stronger old-crop use, and cotton stocks built with no offsetting demand. For Southern producers, the July report is less a market event than a scorecard of how the June Acreage and Grain Stocks reports reshaped the year ahead. The real test arrives in August, when USDA replaces trend yields with its first survey-based estimates and the largest revisions of the season historically follow. With corn and soybean yields still penciled in at trend, August, not July, is the report with the most room to surprise.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1891" height="2560" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/wasde_area_yield_revisions_page-scaled.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44483" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/wasde_area_yield_revisions_page-scaled.png 1891w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/wasde_area_yield_revisions_page-756x1024.png 756w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/wasde_area_yield_revisions_page-768x1040.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/wasde_area_yield_revisions_page-1135x1536.png 1135w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/wasde_area_yield_revisions_page-1513x2048.png 1513w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 1891px) 100vw, 1891px" /></figure>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



Recommended citation format: Gardner, Grant. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/25/july-2026-wasde-acreage-moves-in-july-yields-move-in-august/">July 2026 WASDE: Acreage Moves in July, Yields Move in August.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(29.3). July 15, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/25/july-2026-wasde-acreage-moves-in-july-yields-move-in-august/">Permalink</a>

July 2026 WASDE: Acreage Moves in July, Yields Move in August

Of all the factors that might influence the cost of producing poultry for U.S. contract growers, data centers likely would not come to mind. Yet their impact may be broader than expected, bringing both benefits and challenges.



First, we might consider what a data center does.&nbsp;&nbsp;They are physical buildings that house large numbers of computer servers.&nbsp;&nbsp;These computers provide 3 basic roles:&nbsp;&nbsp;data storage, computer processing, and sending out digital information.&nbsp;&nbsp;Artificial intelligence (AI) systems use these massive computer systems to perform the calculations, searches, and generate answers.&nbsp;&nbsp;Because a data center is a massive number of computer networks linked together, they require a massive amount of electricity and water to keep them running and cool.



On the positive side, modern poultry farms are increasingly connected through internet-based, integrated control systems. AI based decision systems hold the potential to further transform management decision making leading to economic gains.&nbsp;&nbsp;Internet based control systems allow growers to monitor and adjust housing conditions around the clock from virtually anywhere using smart devices. The continued expansion of data networks enhances the speed, reliability, and responsiveness of these systems. This benefits growers by helping them better maintain bird welfare and respond quickly to changing conditions, while integrators gain from improved efficiency and lower grow-out costs.&nbsp;



However, the downside is more complex. Data centers are massive consumers of electricity. Estimates suggest their power demand could rise significantly by the end of the decade, potentially accounting for a sizable share of total U.S. electricity use. Increased demand from data centers is widely expected to contribute to higher electricity costs. This matters greatly for poultry operations, which already rely heavily on electricity for ventilation, cooling, and environmental control. A typical broiler farm in the Southeast may use around 1.65 kWh per square foot annually, totaling roughly 132 megawatt-hours for a standard four-house operation.&nbsp;



Water use presents another important area of overlap. Both poultry farms and data centers require substantial amounts of water to manage heat. A large data center may consume over a million gallons of water per day, many times what an entire broiler farm uses in a full year. Although the scale and timing differ, both experience peak demand during hot weather. Additionally, both are often located in rural areas where supply systems may be less robust and water resources more limited. Increased competition for water can strain local utilities, drive up water costs, and potentially deplete aquifers that supply farm wells. This is particularly concerning in regions already facing tight water supplies.



The effects may extend even further into heating costs. To meet growing electricity demand, much of it driven by data centers, utility companies are investing in new natural gas-fired power plants as a relatively fast way to expand generation capacity. In parts of the Southeast, planned additions of natural gas capacity are substantial (Figure 1). Some data center operators are even considering on-site natural gas generation to power their facilities independently.



For poultry growers, this increased demand for natural gas could lead to higher fuel prices if supply does not expand sufficiently. Since heating is a major cost, especially in broiler production, this could significantly affect profitability. The situation is further complicated by the link between natural gas and propane (LP), as a large share of U.S. propane is derived from natural gas production. Increased natural gas output could potentially boost propane supply and moderate LP prices, meaning growers using propane might see different cost impacts than those relying on natural gas.



In short, while data centers provide the internet infrastructure to improve efficiency for modern poultry production, they also intensify competition for electricity, water, and fuel. This creates a mixed and evolving cost landscape for growers.



Figure 1: Looking at the top 10 broiler producing states, increased natural gas usage by power plants is seen across the board. However, the broiler heavy states of Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and North Carolina are leading the way in increased NG usage for electricity production (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2026)



<figure class="wp-block-image size-full"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="2158" height="1063" src="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/6.29.2.png" alt="" class="wp-image-44467" srcset="https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/6.29.2.png 2158w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/6.29.2-1024x504.png 1024w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/6.29.2-768x378.png 768w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/6.29.2-1536x757.png 1536w, https://sat-wp.afpc.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/6.29.2-2048x1009.png 2048w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 2158px) 100vw, 2158px" /></figure>



References: 



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>“Welcome to Gas Land – how natural gas is powering the AI boom.”&nbsp;<a href="http://www.datacenterdynamics.com/">www.datacenterdynamics.com</a>, May 01, 2025</li>



<li>“Propane Supply News and Market Update.”,&nbsp;<a href="http://www.propaneresources.com/">www.propaneresources.com</a>, June 30, 2026</li>
</ul>



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



Recommended citation format: Brothers, Dennis. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/25/data-centers-and-poultry-growers/">Data Centers and Poultry Growers.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(29.2). July 14, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/25/data-centers-and-poultry-growers/">Permalink</a>

Data Centers and Poultry Growers

Farmers markets across the country are in full swing this time of year. Farmers markets play a critical role in local agriculture. It is a place where buyers and growers gather, a place that creates community, where people can enjoy a leisurely stroll, and where many product samples (and even a bit of town gossip) get shared. Many markets share similar features, and yet each one is a bit different as to customer segments, market structure, products being sold, and the economics behind them. This is true of markets within a state or region, and even more broadly of markets across the U.S. Just like product offerings and prices vary at grocery stores, the same is true of farmers markets. Often, product availability is based on regional tastes, seasonality, profitability, and inputs or growing conditions needed to produce the items.&nbsp;



Recently, a group of land-grant institutions and state programs have been meeting on a regular basis to discuss formal reporting at farmers markets. There are a small number of states that are independently coordinating reporting projects across their areas. Some states have had longer-term projects, and others are more recent. The methods and details may differ, but the goal of the programs is the same: documenting which items are being sold, when, and at what price. While the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has collected market data via its&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/market-news">Market News</a>&nbsp;segment for a long time, the local farmers market reports focus on direct-to-customer sales (compared to wholesale) and aims to include staple items, (sometimes) previously undocumented crops, and multiple regions of a state or area (compared to one urban center). The data collected seeks to represent numerous markets within a state to help producers, consumers, and agriculture professionals understand more about local foods.&nbsp;&nbsp;



These reports can help farmers, customers, researchers, and the public. The University of Kentucky found that farmers use local price reports to set prices, choose crops, budget, write business plans, determine markets, conduct feasibility studies, and pursue grants and loans. Technical assistance providers also use reports to support clients in navigating these decisions (Wolff and Woods). For customers, it can provide information on what&#8217;s available, when, and the cost. This can be especially informative for value-added processors, restaurants, and other food businesses that might put an emphasis on using local products. For research, data can show the effects of the overall economy, support programs, natural disasters, black swan events, or political impacts. For a general audience, price reports can enhance our understanding of local agriculture production and food systems. Annual reports provide data to analyze trends, developments, and economic impacts over time. For these reasons, the states and project coordinators continue to push local reporting. 



Currently, the authors are aware of price reporting projects in Alabama, Kentucky, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Vermont, and West Virginia.&nbsp;



For more information about the reporting projects or to get involved, please contact the article authors.&nbsp;



Reference:



Wolff, B. and T. Woods (2026) Local Price Reporting as Food System Infrastructure: Evidence from Kentucky Farmers Markets and Produce Auctions. Forthcoming.



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



Recommended citation format: Burkett, Kevin. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/25/how-much-are-you-selling-those-tomatoes-for-a-regional-collaboration/">How Much Are You Selling Those Tomatoes For? A Regional Collaboration</a>.&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(29.1). July 13, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/25/how-much-are-you-selling-those-tomatoes-for-a-regional-collaboration/">Permalink</a>

“How Much Are You Selling Those Tomatoes For?” A Regional Collaboration

Introduction



At the onset of 2025, President Trump laid tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China under a claim of authority from the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This act, passed in 1977, grants the president the authority to “regulate . . . importation” in response to a declared national emergency. President Trump&nbsp;<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-imposes-tariffs-on-imports-from-canada-mexico-and-china/">claimed</a>&nbsp;that “poisonous fentanyl” and “the extraordinary threat posed by illegal aliens” had led to national emergencies in the U.S., which justified the imposition of tariffs under IEEPA. Whether IEEPA actually allowed for a president to implement tariffs was a question raised in multiple lawsuits, and eventually the Supreme Court stepped in to provide their answer.&nbsp;



The Supreme Court’s Decision&nbsp;



Two separate cases were ultimately consolidated in the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the IEEPA tariffs.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/25-66.pdf">One case</a>began in the Court of International Trade (CIT) when a group of businesses filed a complaint asserting that IEEPA did not authorize the president to impose tariffs. The&nbsp;<a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7821823042483982791&amp;q=learning+resources+inc+v.+trump+&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=1006&amp;google_abuse=GOOGLE_ABUSE_EXEMPTION%3DID%3Dca76e64ad40cbd41:TM%3D1782406032:C%3Dr:IP%3D159.150.4.84-:S%3DYhsKbJ-s20dzzumNPDENaKQ%3B+path%3D/%3B+domain%3Dgoogle.com%3B+expires%3DThu,+25-Jun-2026+19:47:12+GMT">second case</a>, originally filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, similarly challenged the scope of IEEPA’s authority. After both cases were appealed to the Supreme Court, the Court combined both cases in its&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf">decision</a>&nbsp;of&nbsp;Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump.&nbsp;There, the Supreme Court sought to answer the question which had prompted both lower court cases: Does IEEPA authorize the President to impose tariffs?&nbsp;



To resolve this dispute, the Supreme Court needed to determine whether “regulate . . . importation” included the authority to lay tariffs. First, the Court noted that the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive power to lay and collect taxes, which has historically included tariffs. According to the Court, when Congress wishes to confer its authority to lay taxes and tariffs it will do so “clearly.” The Court reasoned that “when Congress has delegated its tariff powers, it has done so in explicit terms, and subject to strict limits.”&nbsp;



Here, the Court ultimately determined that Congress had not explicitly conferred the authority to impose tariffs through IEEPA. In reaching this conclusion, the Court looked at precedent and the text of IEEPA itself.&nbsp;&nbsp;First, no President has ever relied on IEEPA to impose tariffs. Given this lack of precedent and the “breadth of authority” now being claimed under IEEPA, the Court concluded that the IEEPA tariffs were beyond the President’s “legitimate reach.” Second, and perhaps most importantly, the word “tariff” is not mentioned anywhere in IEEPA’s text. The Court reasoned that if Congress had intended for IEEPA to include the power to lay tariffs, it would have made that clear in IEEPA’s text, “as it consistently has in other tariff statutes.” Without any historical precedent or clear Congressional intent, the Court concluded in a 6-3 decision that IEEPA did not authorize the President to impose tariffs.&nbsp;



The Aftermath&nbsp;



The Court’s decision vacated the IEEPA tariffs, however it did not discuss the issue of potential refunds. Considering the massive impact of the IEEPA tariffs, this left many businesses wondering if and how refunds would be issued for the now vacated IEEPA tariffs. Following an order to begin issuing refunds from the CIT, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) outlined its new system for processing and issuing IEEPA refunds. The Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) system is a digital portal where importers can file a refund claim for duties paid while the tariffs were in effect. The CAPE system is being implemented through a “phased development” with system functions being implemented over time. Businesses who paid duties pursuant to the IEEPA tariffs should visit CBP’s&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cbp.gov/trade/programs-administration/trade-remedies/ieepa-duty-refunds">website</a>&nbsp;to learn more about potential IEEPA refunds under the CAPE system.&nbsp;



Shortly after the Court vacated the IEEPA tariffs, President Trump&nbsp;<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2026/02/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-imposes-a-temporary-import-duty-to-address-fundamental-international-payment-problems/">announced</a>&nbsp;that he would be implementing a global 10% tariff rate. This time, President Trump claimed the tariffs were authorized by&nbsp;<a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-10384/pdf/COMPS-10384.pdf">Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974</a>. As was the case with IEEPA, no President had ever relied on Section 122 to implement tariffs. Unlike IEEPA, Section 122 does explicitly grant the President the authority to impose tariffs. However, the Section 122 tariffs would still go on to face legal challenges. Currently, the Section 122 tariffs are still in effect at an increased rate of 15%, but this is subject to change depending on the outcome of ongoing litigation. Regardless, these tariffs are indicative of the Administration’s ongoing intent to continue placing emphasis on tariffs in its international trade strategy.&nbsp;



Conclusion



The IEEPA tariffs dominated international trade headlines while still in effect.&nbsp;<a href="https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/p/2026-02-20-supreme-court-tariff-ruling/">Reportedly</a>, nearly $140 billion in duties were collected from the IEEPA tariffs by December of 2025. Naturally, this means that many businesses felt their effects. While the IEEPA tariffs may now be vacated, refunds and tariffs enacted under other statutes remain an important issue for many business owners. To learn more about the Supreme Court’s decision to vacate the IEEPA tariffs, click&nbsp;<a href="https://nationalaglawcenter.org/supreme-court-vacates-ieepa-tariffs/">here</a>. To learn more about the aftermath of the Court’s decision, click&nbsp;<a href="https://nationalaglawcenter.org/supreme-court-vacates-ieepa-tariffs-what-comes-next/">here</a>.&nbsp;



<hr class="wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity"/>



Recommended citation format: Scobey, Will. &#8220;<a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/25/status-of-the-international-emergency-economic-powers-act-ieepa-tariff-litigation/">Status of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) Tariff Litigation.</a>&#8221; Southern Ag Today 6(28.5). July 10, 2026. <a href="https://southernagtoday.org/2026/06/25/status-of-the-international-emergency-economic-powers-act-ieepa-tariff-litigation/">Permalink</a>

Explore Daily Topics

Collaborating Universities