According to consistent reports in Argentine legal media (we could not find the official text), on September 29, 2026 Argentina's Supreme Court overturned the La Plata appeals ruling that had declared the repeal of Ley 26.737 unconstitutional, dismissing that claim for lack of standing without deciding whether the repeal is valid. As checked on October 8, 2026, the National Rural Land Registry still says the foreign-ownership restrictions are in force under a precautionary measure, while the official legislation database lists the law as repealed. Treat the status as unresolved and get written confirmation before relying on either reading.
What changed
On September 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted the national government's appeal in C.E.C.I.M. La Plata v. National Executive (file FLP 47574/2023), overturned the federal appeals ruling in La Plata that had declared Article 154 of DNU 70/2023—the repeal of Ley 26.737—unconstitutional, and dismissed the claim because the association lacked standing. In a statement on October 1, the Court said it had decided only that procedural question, that the ruling does not affect other precautionary measures with the same object pending in other courts, and that it cannot be read as a position of the Court on the underlying land-law dispute, which was not resolved in that case. Argentine media also reported on October 6 that the Court will add two substitute judges (conjueces) to decide a separate challenge to Article 154 brought by Asociación Civil Árbol de Pie and others. We could not find the ruling or the statement on the Court's official channels at our check; these details follow consistent reports in Argentine legal and general media, among them Palabras del Derecho, Diario Judicial, Perfil and iProfesional.
What did not change
The Court did not declare the repeal valid or say that the limits no longer apply. As checked on October 8, 2026, the Rural Land Registry's pages—last updated in August 2025, before the ruling—still say the restrictions are in force under a precautionary measure, without naming the court or case. The official legislation database lists Ley 26.737 as repealed by Article 154 of DNU 70/2023. Rural status, hectares, location, nationality, ownership structure, water bodies and border-zone rules still matter for each parcel.
Why it matters
Headlines and listings may say foreigners can now buy rural land without limits. The ruling does not support that reading, and the registry that issues rural-land certificates still describes the limits as in force. Signing on either assumption without a written answer for the specific buyer and parcel is a transaction risk.
Checks before acting
- Confirm whether the asset is legally classified as rural land.
- Ask the RNTR in writing whether its certificate process currently applies to this buyer, structure and parcel.
- Run the separate Security Border Zone check where location makes it relevant.
- Ask independent Argentine counsel and the escribano to check for other precautionary measures or new rulings before signing on either assumption.
Frequently asked questions
Did the Supreme Court restore the repeal of Argentina's Rural Land Law?
Not on the merits. According to Argentine legal-media reports (we could not find the official text), on September 29, 2026 it overturned the La Plata ruling that had declared the repeal unconstitutional and dismissed that claim for lack of standing. In its reported October 1 statement, the Court said the underlying land-law dispute, including whether the repeal is valid, was not resolved in that case.
Does the Rural Land Registry still apply the foreign-ownership limits?
As checked on October 8, 2026, its pages still say the restrictions are in force under a precautionary measure, without naming the court or case. The pages were last updated in August 2025, before the ruling, so ask the registry in writing for its current position on a specific acquisition.
Does Ley 26.737 prohibit every foreign buyer from owning rural land?
No. The regime uses scope, percentage, surface-area and other rules rather than a universal prohibition. The buyer, structure, nationality, parcel and current official process require specific review.
Is a headline saying the limits disappeared enough to rely on?
No. As reported, the ruling did not decide whether the repeal is valid, and the Court said it does not affect other precautionary measures with the same object pending before other courts; the registry still lists the limits as in force. A headline does not establish the position for a specific buyer, structure and parcel.
Is the Rural Land Law the same as border-zone approval?
No. Rural-land controls and the prior-conformity process for Security Border Zones are separate checks. Depending on the parcel, both may need to be resolved.