Full Breakdown
Trump’s 50% Tariffs on Canadian Goods Face Legal Challenge
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event – Lawsuit Targets Section 338 Tariffs
New Jersey-based importer Gellert Global Group filed a complaint in the U.S. Court of International Trade, alleging President Donald Trump exceeded constitutional authority by invoking Section 338 of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 to impose 50 percent duties on Canadian products. The suit seeks a declaration that the tariffs are illegal, an end to their collection, and refunds with interest.
Background & Context – A Dormant Statute Revived
Section 338, enacted in 1930, allows the president to levy up to a 50 percent tariff when a foreign country “discriminates” against U.S. exporters. It had never been used until the Trump administration applied it in August 2026 after trade talks with Canada stalled, expanding the list in September 2026 to include dairy, alcohol, furniture and automotive items.
Later statutes—the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act (1934), Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977—impose procedural safeguards such as investigations and public comment periods. Legal analysts argue these laws implicitly repeal the broader authority of Section 338.
Data & Statistics – Scope of the Dispute
- The tariffs cover roughly US $20 billion of Canadian imports.
- Gellert imported about US $71 million of Canadian cheese in 2025.
- Between Sept. 16 and Oct. 11, the company paid over US $520,000 in duties.
- Gellert estimates the tariffs could cost the firm ? US $40 million per year.
Official Statements & Responses
The White House declined comment. A senior Trump administration official, speaking on background, said the administration will “vigorously defend” its actions and maintains that the president’s authority under Section 338 is lawful.
The Liberty Justice Center, representing Gellert, argues newer statutes “superseded” Section 338 and that the president failed to meet required procedural steps, such as the 30-day waiting period before collecting duties on newly listed products.
Criticism & Opposition
Legal experts contend the tariffs violate statutory hierarchy and constitutional separation of powers. Sara Albrecht, CEO of the Liberty Justice Center, warns that “no president should have the power to pull a dormant statute off the shelf and use it to impose sweeping tariffs without the limits Congress required.”
U.S. Representative Mike Hoekstra counters, stating that “the Canadian measures they cite do not discriminate against the United States.”
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
The lawsuit challenges the legality of the Section 338 tariffs but does not address other U.S. duties on Canadian goods imposed under Section 232 (national security) or Section 301 (unfair trade practices). No source provides a definitive ruling on whether Section 338 remains viable law, leaving the constitutional question unresolved.
Verbatim Quotes
- “The administration cannot skip those protections by reaching for a 1930 statute that no president had ever used to impose a tariff,” — Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel, Liberty Justice Center
- “No president should have the power to pull a dormant statute off the shelf and use it to impose sweeping tariffs or import bans without the limits Congress required,” — Sara Albrecht, justice center CEO
- “The Canadian measures they cite do not discriminate against the United States,” — Hoekstra
What’s Next – Court Decision Pending
The court must decide whether Section 338 is pre-empted by later trade legislation and whether the president’s use complies with constitutional delegation limits. The ruling could reshape presidential tariff authority and influence future trade disputes with Canada and other partners.