OMAHA (DTN) -- Farmers and others are staking out their positions as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares on Wednesday to hear arguments over President Donald Trump's authority to set tariffs.

Two cases -- Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump and V.O.S. Selection v. Trump -- challenge Trump's use of the 1977 International Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad tariffs. Plaintiffs and business groups argue the law was designed to let presidents sanction hostile nations or respond to national emergencies, not set trade policy.

Trump called the cases among the most important in history. He has been posting on social media about the case for weeks. Without the ability to immediately set his own tariffs, Trump said, "we will be at a major disadvantage against other countries throughout the world."

The hearing also comes just days after Trump finished a trip to Asia that the administration stated would expand agricultural market access in countries such as Vietnam and Malaysia. The administration also reached a deal with China over soybean exports following months of tariff and export restrictions imposed by both countries.

AG VOICES HIGHLIGHT COST OF TARIFFS

The case about tariffs is being waged in and out of the High Court. On Nov. 4, the group Farmers for Free Trade finished its motorcade tour by parking an RV on the National Mall and hosting an event on how tariffs affect agricultural exports and farmers' input costs.

Separately, the group Tariffs Cost US held a press call with farmers and other small business owners from across the country to highlight how tariffs have affected their ability to import, price and sell their products, and grow their businesses. An organic farmer, a coffee shop owner, the CEO of a promotional imprint company and a flower shop owner were among those who talked about higher costs.

"These across-the-board tariffs have had a real impact on small farmers like mine," said Mary Carroll Dodd, a farmer in western North Carolina.

A coffee shop owner in Detroit said Brazilian coffee prices had already skyrocketed more than 60% because of a poor crop and then 50% tariffs were imposed. He said he has no option but to raise prices on customers.

Aaron Lehman, president of Iowa Farmers Union, said his members were already facing higher input costs before the tariffs were implemented.

"Tariffs have increased the costs exponentially on some of the main things we use to grow a crop, especially fertilizer," he said. Lehman added, "This has a huge impact us on and the impact is only going to be greater when we go to sell what we grow."

ADMINISTRATION DEFENDS POWERS

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, speaking on Fox News, said the tariffs are critical for economic security and national security. Bessent said the country was facing an economic "tipping point" before Trump imposed the tariffs.

"Fortunately, President Trump came in, he put on the tariffs, he's rebalancing global trade in favor of the U.S. and he has prevented an economic crisis," Bessent said on Fox.

Despite agriculture being at the center of the president's tariff disputes with other countries, no farm organizations filed amicus briefs in the cases, either backing the president's authority or opposing it.

If the High Court rules against the administration, it would "effectively disarm the President in the highly competitive arena of international trade" and stymie negotiations on top foreign policies, the Trump administration argued in its final brief. Such a ruling also "would destroy" framework deals with the European Union, United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea and China worth "several trillions of dollars," the administration stated.

The administration maintains IEEPA gives the president authority to "regulate importation" which "plainly encompasses tariffs," the administration's brief stated. The administration also stated tariffs and fees are tools to adjust the level of imports and the courts have upheld that authority to "adjust imports."

Trump's arguments are backed by groups such as the America First Policy Institute (AFPI) and the American First Legal Foundation, both organizations founded by staff from Trump's first term that draft their positions to remain close to Trump's views. AFPI argues tariffs are part of foreign policy and Supreme Court in the past has refused to intervene in major foreign policy issues.

CHAMBER, POLICY GROUPS PUSH BACK

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is among the most influential groups opposing Trump's tariffs, challenging Trump's power to broadly impose them. "The president has claimed the authority under IEEPA to issue tariffs on any country, in any amount, and for any duration."

In April, Trump imposed an across-the-board baseline tariff of 10% on all imports, but set higher tariffs for nations with higher trade surpluses with the U.S. He also issued an executive order that called sustained trade deficits an ongoing "emergency of historical proportions." The deficits risk leading the country to "the brink of a major economic and national-security catastrophe." Trump also imposed tariffs against China, Canada and Mexico tied to fentanyl.

The National Taxpayers Union countered administration warnings of "catastrophic" effects, saying lifting tariffs would reduce costs and boost exports for U.S. farmers. The group cited 463 economists, including nine Nobel laureates, who noted the U.S. has run trade deficits for 49 years while wealth and GDP continued to grow.

The Chamber of Commerce noted IEEPA doesn't mention tariffs or any other type of "duty." The legislation doesn't spell out any language for the president to impose tariffs. Until this year, no president ever tried to use the law to impose tariffs.

"As a result of the President's sweeping tariffs, businesses have been forced to raise prices, freeze hiring, and postpone investments -- risking damage to their reputations and market share."

The chamber added, "Small businesses -- collectively responsible for a third of the total value of imported goods -- are especially vulnerable."

DEFINING 'REGULATE'

The Trump administration has pointed to the use of the term "regulate importation" in IEEPA to tell the Court that grants the president authority to impose tariffs. The term "regulate" has become central to both sides. The administration said it allows for multiple meanings.

"A farmer may raise crops, raise livestock and raise children, but the verb 'raise' naturally encompasses a different set of actions as to each of those objects, even though its general meaning is fixed across all three. So too with 'regulate.'"

If the Court allows that, the Chamber said, then other agencies could "discover a latent taxation power" from other statutes by using "regulate."

Cato Institute, a libertarian free-market policy think tank, also cited two Supreme Court cases during the Biden administration in which the High Court specifically curtailed agencies' authorities to draft rules not explicitly granted in law. Cato argued that accepting the Trump administration's theory would mean Congress could transfer sweeping powers to the president "through ambiguous text and silence."

Chris Clayton can be reached at Chris.Clayton@dtn.com

Follow him on social platform X @ChrisClaytonDTN

(c) Copyright 2025 DTN, LLC. All rights reserved.