Cheese importer sues over 50% tariffs on Canada
Gellert Global Group went to the Court of International Trade against Section 338, a 1930 law no administration had used.
A New Jersey food importer filed the first lawsuit Oct. 20 against the 50% tariffs Donald Trump has imposed on Canadian products. Gellert Global Group, which buys Canadian cheese, went to the U.S. Court of International Trade. It argues that Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which no administration had ever used, is not a valid basis for the duties.
The Liberty Justice Center, which represents the company, wants the court to declare the duties illegal, halt their collection and refund what was paid with interest. The company also seeks to represent a whole class of affected importers. The judges have not yet certified that class or ruled on the merits.
The suit makes four claims:
- Later laws, above all Section 301 of 1974, made Section 338 obsolete.
- The tariffs exceed the authority the law grants.
- If the law allowed them, it would violate the nondelegation doctrine.
- Collection on products added in September began ahead of the 30-day waiting period.
The White House said it will defend the tariffs and considers Section 338 an appropriate response to alleged Canadian discrimination against U.S. dairy, alcohol and automobiles.
The tariffs stem from proclamations dated July 20 and have been collected since Aug. 22; those on products added in September, since Sept. 15. They cover about $20 billion in Canadian imports, and Canada responded with retaliatory tariffs of a similar amount.
Gellert says in its suit that in 2025 it bought about $71 million in cheese from Canada, would pay about $40 million a year in duties and has already paid at least $520,538. These are the company's figures, without independent verification.
No president should be able to "take an inactive law off the shelf" to impose sweeping tariffs, said Sara Albrecht, president of the Liberty Justice Center. No one had sued as of late August: she explained then that she had received little response from potential plaintiffs, because these tariffs are much smaller than the global ones of 2025, which the Supreme Court struck down in February 2026.
Legal scholars disagree on the statute. Peter Harrell and Jennifer Hillman read the law as authorizing only duties that offset the harm suffered, and say the government did not calculate it. John Veroneau takes the opposite view: the law is clear and applies if a country treats the United States worse than others.
