On Wednesday, November 5, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments on executive tariff authority, a case that promises to have ripple effects far beyond the bounds of pure trade law. Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., No. 25-250.In the chemical sector — where global chemical feedstocks, complex supply chains, and regulatory compliance are already famously complicated — the stakes are especially high. If the Court limits or invalidates the President’s ability unilaterally to impose broad tariffs under statutes such as the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232) and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the chemical and pesticide industry (and its regulatory ecosystem) will need to adjust quickly. Conversely, if such power is affirmed or even expanded, chemical and pesticide manufacturers and regulators must brace for compliance shocks and additional supply chain disruption.
Section 232 authorizes the President, upon a finding by the United States Department of Commerce that imports threaten national security, to impose duties or quotas. The 2025 version of this policy significantly increased duties on steel and aluminum (up to 50 percent) and extended coverage to derivative products. For chemical firms, feedstocks and catalysts often rely on imported metals, minerals, and chemical intermediates — meaning the ripple effects from metal tariffs are non-trivial. The derivative list now explicitly mentions “chemical products” in its Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) codes.
When input costs spike or supply chains shift rapidly, chemical companies face choices: absorb the cost, pass it on, or switch suppliers — which may in turn affect regulatory alignment (e.g., different chemical inventories (and thus regulatory status), different hazard profiles). The regulatory implications under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) — for example import certifications, feedstock substitutions, potential new chemical reviews — cannot be ignored. For pesticide companies, given the fragility of the farm economy, farmers’ ability to tolerate a price increase would mean absorbing the higher production cost or face reduced sales.
Chemical firms operating globally rely on precise tariff classification and are driven by a commitment to regulatory compliance. For example, under TSCA import certification, importers must declare compliance with TSCA provisions. Under FIFRA Section 17, importers wishing to turn to foreign pesticide actives or formulants lacking U.S. registration may not do so. Rapid shifts in chemical inventory can undermine customs/regulatory coordination and invite the specter of regulatory noncompliance, creating potential regulatory consequences under TSCA and FIFRA.
If tariffs trigger raw material substitution (e.g., switching to a non-U.S. feedstock with different regulatory status or lesser toxicity data), companies may face new regulatory risk. If the chemical is “new,” slower throughput under the TSCA Section 5 new chemical review process likely renders the substitute chemical, even if less toxic, a non-starter. A changed source for an active ingredient in a pesticide formulation could mean a required step for a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that is likely to see delays due to the shutdown.
From the policy side, a shift in trade law destabilizes the regulatory baseline. Regulators (EPA, Customs, and other regulatory agencies) may struggle to assess accurately volumes and supply chain dynamics — complicating administrative planning.
Trade policy is increasingly intersecting with industrial policy. Materials once considered commodities — lithium, cobalt, rare-earths, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) substitutes — are now the subject of investigations under Section 232 and similar authorities. For the chemical industry, this means both opportunity and risk:
- Opportunity: Tariff or import-adjustment pressure may spur domestic sourcing or research and development (R&D) into alternative chemistries (aligning with TSCA’s incentives for safer alternatives).
- Risk: If trade disruptions force reliance on less‐tested or non-regulated substitutes, regulatory uncertainty increases.
For policymakers, coordination matters: trade, environment, health, and industrial policy cannot operate in silos. A fractured approach may lead to unintended consequences — e.g., cheaper imports with potentially higher hazard burdens, or supply disruptions that delay regulatory review and safe product entry.
The Supreme Court’s looming consideration of cases like Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. underscores how foundational trade-authority questions are. The Court will consider whether the President has independent authority to impose broad tariffs absent clear congressional authorization. The Court is expected to announce its ruling by June 2026, or sooner.
If the Court limits executive tariff power, the chemical sector might face a period of regulatory and supply chain recalibration: companies may renegotiate imports, suppliers may shift, and regulatory programs (which assume certain flows) may need to adjust. If authority is affirmed or expanded, companies may face surprise duties, rapidly shifting sourcing, and compliance burdens tied to both trade and regulation.
What Chemical and Regulatory Stakeholders Should Do Now
Next steps for chemical and regulatory stakeholders should include the following:
- Supply chain stress test: Chemical firms should map feedstocks, catalysts, imports, and derivatives to assess tariff-exposure risk and overlap with regulatory status.
- Regulatory alignment: Firms should review whether substituting inputs will trigger new regulatory reviews (TSCA new chemicals; Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)-type obligations abroad).
- Policy engagement: Trade policy is no longer a distant concern for chemical regulation — companies, trade associations, and regulators should engage proactively.
- Watch the Court: The Supreme Court’s decision will affect tariffs, but it could also affect how regulatory agencies anticipate and model supply chain dynamics.
This week’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court may appear at first glance to be about tariff law and the limits of executive power. For the chemical sector, however — where every import, every feedstock, every new intermediate enters a regulatory universe of its own — the Court’s decision will ripple through regulatory review, compliance timelines, sourcing flexibility, and strategic materials planning. Whether the outcome tightens or broadens executive trade authority, the message is clear: chemical regulatory strategy cannot ignore trade policy.
For industry and regulators alike, the call to action has shifted from “watch this space” to “plan for whichever space we land in.”