For the fourth time, a legal advocacy group has stepped into the space between executive ambition and constitutional design, challenging the Trump administration's imposition of 50 percent tariffs on Canadian goods. At the center of the dispute is a New Jersey cheese importer caught in the crossfire of collapsed trade negotiations and retaliatory duties, while the deeper question turns on whether a president may revive a nearly century-old statute to exercise sweeping economic power that the Constitution reserves for Congress. The case, filed in October 2026, asks courts to decide not merely w
Trump faces fourth legal challenge over Canadian tariffs
The Constitution gives tariff power to Congress
Mark
So this is the fourth time this group has sued Trump over tariffs. What makes this case different from the others?
Mimi
The statute is different. This one relies on Section 338 of the 1930 Tariff Act, whereas the earlier case that succeeded used emergency powers. The Liberty Justice Center is arguing the administration is just moving the same tariff policy onto different legal shelves.
Luke
But has the court actually ruled on Section 338 before? Or is this new legal territory?
Mimi
It appears to be new territory. The earlier victory was about emergency powers, which is a narrower question. This one asks whether a 1930 trade statute can be stretched to cover what amounts to a broad retaliatory tariff regime.
Mark
Why does the 30-day waiting period matter so much to the lawsuit?
Mimi
It's evidence the administration didn't follow the law as written. Section 338 requires 30 days before tariffs take effect, but they added cheese to the list just a week before collection began. It suggests either carelessness or deliberate circumvention.
Luke
Though the White House might argue the timeline was compressed because of urgent trade circumstances. Do we know their reasoning for the accelerated schedule?
Mimi
The source doesn't include the administration's justification. They were contacted for comment but haven't responded yet.
Mark
What's the actual harm to Gellert Global Group?
Mimi
They're paying 50 percent tariffs on Canadian cheese imports, and Canada is retaliating with tariffs on American cheese they export north. So they're squeezed from both sides.
Luke
Is Gellert Global Group representative of the broader impact, or are they a particularly vulnerable case the Liberty Justice Center chose strategically?
Mimi
The source doesn't say whether they're typical or outliers. We know they're a third-generation family business, which might make them sympathetic, but we don't have data on how many other importers are in similar positions.
Mark
What's the likelihood this case succeeds?
Luke
Unknown. The group won once before, which is significant. But that was on emergency powers, which is a stronger constitutional argument than this one. Section 338 is old and vague, which cuts both ways—it could be read narrowly or broadly depending on the judge.
Il Polso
- A 50 percent tariff on $20 billion in Canadian goods landed on US importers after trade talks collapsed in August, leaving businesses like Gellert Global Group squeezed from both sides — taxed on what comes in, and hit with Canadian retaliation on what goes out.
- The Liberty Justice Center argues the White House broke its own rules: Section 338 of the 1930 Tariff Act requires a 30-day waiting period, but cheese and other products were added to the tariff list just one week before collection began.
- The administration's legal footing is further challenged by claims that Section 338 has been superseded by a 1974 trade law, and that Canadian retaliation alone cannot serve as the legal justification for duties under a statute written in a different era of global commerce.
- A motion for a preliminary injunction has been filed to halt tariff collection while the case proceeds, with the group's prior success — a court striking down emergency-powers tariffs in February 2026 — signaling that judges have been receptive to arguments about executive overreach.
- The constitutional stakes extend well beyond cheese: the Liberty Justice Center contends that no president should be able to migrate the same policy across statutes to escape the limits Congress deliberately built in.
For the fourth time, a legal advocacy group has stepped into the space between executive ambition and constitutional design, challenging the Trump administration's imposition of 50 percent tariffs on Canadian goods. At the center of the dispute is a New Jersey cheese importer caught in the crossfire of collapsed trade negotiations and retaliatory duties, while the deeper question turns on whether a president may revive a nearly century-old statute to exercise sweeping economic power that the Constitution reserves for Congress. The case, filed in October 2026, asks courts to decide not merely who pays for cheese, but who holds the authority to set the terms of American commerce with the world.
A legal advocacy group has filed its fourth lawsuit against the Trump administration's tariff regime, this time challenging a 50 percent levy on roughly $20 billion in Canadian goods. The Liberty Justice Center brought the case on behalf of Gellert Global Group, a New Jersey food importer that imports Canadian cheese while also selling American cheese to Canadian buyers — leaving it exposed to tariffs flowing in both directions.
The duties took effect after US-Canada trade negotiations broke down in August. The White House justified them under Section 338 of the 1930 Tariff Act, a provision originally designed to shield American businesses from foreign discrimination. The Liberty Justice Center argues the administration has stretched that old statute far beyond what Congress ever intended, bypassing the legal guardrails meant to constrain executive power. Among the procedural violations cited: the law requires a 30-day waiting period before tariffs take effect, but affected products were added to the list just one week before collection began.
For Gellert Global Group, the disruption has been immediate and personal. Co-chief executive Thomas Gellert described relationships built over generations with suppliers and customers being upended, with costs and uncertainty spreading through every layer of the supply chain. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney responded to the initial tariffs by matching them dollar for dollar, and the lawsuit questions whether that retaliation can itself serve as legal justification under a statute written nearly a century ago.
Sara Albrecht, chief executive of the Liberty Justice Center, framed the case as a constitutional matter: no president should be able to resurrect dormant statutes and impose sweeping tariffs without the limits Congress established. The group has also sought a preliminary injunction to block tariff collection while the litigation proceeds. Their earlier challenge to tariffs imposed under emergency economic powers was struck down by a court in February 2026 — a precedent that suggests judges have been willing to push back on executive overreach in trade. Whether the Court of International Trade agrees in this instance will shape not only these Canadian tariffs, but the broader boundaries of presidential authority in trade disputes.
A legal advocacy group has filed its fourth lawsuit against the Trump administration's tariff regime, this time targeting a 50 percent levy on roughly $20 billion worth of Canadian goods. The Liberty Justice Center brought the case on behalf of Gellert Global Group, a New Jersey-based food importer that has found itself caught between two countries' competing trade measures.
The tariffs took effect after negotiations between the US and Canada broke down in August. The White House justified the duties under Section 338 of the 1930 Tariff Act, a provision originally designed to protect American businesses from foreign discrimination. But the Liberty Justice Center argues the administration has weaponized an old statute in ways Congress never intended, imposing sweeping restrictions without following the legal guardrails that were supposed to constrain executive power.
Gellert Global Group imports cheese from Canada and also sells American-made cheese to Canadian buyers. The company now faces the 50 percent tariff on its incoming Canadian products while simultaneously dealing with retaliatory duties from Ottawa on its outbound shipments. Thomas Gellert, a co-chief executive at the family business, described the disruption in stark terms: relationships built over generations with suppliers and customers have been upended, creating costs and uncertainty that ripple through every layer of the supply chain.
The lawsuit identifies several legal problems with how the administration deployed Section 338. The statute requires a 30-day waiting period before tariffs can be imposed, but the administration added cheese and other products to the tariff list just one week before collection began. The Liberty Justice Center also argues that Section 338 has been superseded by Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, and that even if the older law still applies, the White House has not established the legal foundation for such broad duties against Canada.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney responded to the initial Section 338 tariffs by matching them dollar for dollar, citing what he characterized as unequal treatment of Canadian cars, dairy, and alcohol. The lawsuit challenges the administration's reliance on these Canadian countermeasures as justification for its own duties, questioning whether retaliation alone provides sufficient legal grounds under a statute written nearly a century ago.
Sara Albrecht, chief executive of the Liberty Justice Center, framed the dispute as a constitutional question rather than a trade policy disagreement. She argued that no president should possess the authority to resurrect dormant statutes and use them to impose sweeping tariffs without the limits Congress established. The group has also filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction to block collection of the tariffs while the case proceeds.
This lawsuit represents the fourth challenge the Liberty Justice Center has brought against Trump's tariff actions. In February 2026, the group successfully challenged tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and the court struck them down. That victory suggests the group has found traction with judges on the question of executive overreach, though each case turns on the specific statute the administration invoked.
The Liberty Justice Center's core argument remains consistent across all its filings: the Constitution vests tariff power in Congress, not the presidency. The group contends that the administration cannot simply move the same policy from one statute to another and expect the legal limits to vanish. Whether the Court of International Trade agrees will determine not only the fate of these particular Canadian tariffs but also the boundaries of presidential authority in trade disputes.
Citazioni salienti
These tariffs disrupt those relationships overnight and create costs and uncertainty that ripple through the entire supply chain.— Thomas Gellert, co-chief executive of Gellert Global Group
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, chief executive of the Liberty Justice Center
Vuoi la storia completa?
Leggi l'originale su BBC News ↗
Politics & Governance