During the National Farmer’s Union Convention, Farm Director KC Sheperd caught us with Harrison Pittman, director of the National Agricultural Law Center, to talk about legal concerns of ag producers.
“Today, primarily we talked about the Supreme Court Loper Bright decision that deals with the scope of federal authority, and legalize on how courts give deference to what degree of agency action and agency interpretations of statutes which is a huge deal for the future of ag.”
During the meeting, many topics were covered, including the Supreme Court Loper v. Bright decision that deals with the scope of federal authority and legalese on how courts interpret and give deference to various scopes of agency action. They also discussed foreign ownership of agricultural land, tariffs, and suspensions of import licenses.
Of the latter, Pittman said, “I hope that is something that goes away pretty quickly because that is beyond tariffs. Tariffs mean you are being charged a higher cost for importing into the country. This means that you don’t get to import at all. That, I hope, gets resolved favorably somehow, sooner rather than later.”
Regulations and litigation surrounding pesticides have changed the most since Pittman took his position in 2001. “The regulatory process was never super easy,” he said. “Now, it is even more difficult. I don’t think I’m saying anything ground-shaking there.”
Making things even more challenging are the diverse agendas introduced by each new administration over the years. “Every administration is a new chef in the kitchen, and they each bring their own fingerprints to it,” Pittman struggled to explain. “Some, for ag, are more pronounced than others, but in the last three or four administrations, agriculture has kind of been right in the middle of a lot.”
He cited the debates about tariffs, calling President Trump’s tariff policies and intended use of tariffs “new territory.”
“In my knowledge, we don’t have a lot of precedent for tying tariffs to other domestic priorities,” he said. “Particularly, the funds generated from tariffs being used to offset the cost of things like tax cuts, which has been publicly stated as a goal of the tariffs.”
Pittman explained that the real issue for agriculture has been the retaliatory tariffs. He remembered the loss of market share due to retaliatory action on corn and soybeans from China, Argentina, and Brazil in 2018.
“It will be interesting to watch as we now levy tariffs more broadly, and there is talk of going even against the European Union with tariffs,” he said. “I don’t know anybody who truly knows how to predict that – both to what degree they are implemented and then what the impact is by, A.) threatening them, even when you don’t do them, then B.) the retaliatory tariffs when you do. Then, of course, this notion of suspending import licenses. That is a big dang deal.”
He pointed out that 96 percent of agricultural consumers don’t live in the U.S.A., so having those markets is of utmost importance to producers.
About the potential for a government shutdown on March 14, Pittman is concerned. “Reconciliation is a separate legislative process than the budget; those are two separate things. March the fourteenth and reconciliation are technically separate, but they are so politically intertwined right now that it has concerned me about whether or not the competing sides will be able to have enough consensus to bump forward on a March 14th deal.”
He explained further that the next step is whether or not the House will pass the most recent version of the budget resolution. It will be a different conversation when it goes to the Senate, and what will happen if it doesn’t pass.
“Margins, particularly in the House, is so tight between the two parties that every member is sort of a congress to themselves, so they all have some leverage, particularly on the Republican side right now, because it is the majority, so we’ll see,” he concluded.
