Trump Accused of Unlawfully Invoking 1930s Law for Canada Tariffs
A New Jersey-based food importer, Gellert Global Group, has sued former President Donald Trump, alleging he illegally used Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to impose 50% tariffs on Canadian goods. The company claims these tariffs, applied to imported cheeses like brie and camembert, have already cost it over $520,000 in duties and could result in annual losses of $40 million. The lawsuit argues that newer trade laws enacted by Congress, such as Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, supersede Section 338 and limit presidential authority to impose such tariffs. Additionally, the suit contends that the Trump administration did not comply with Section 338’s procedural requirements, particularly the mandated 30-day delay before imposing duties on newly listed goods. The White House has stated it will defend the tariffs, asserting they are a proper response to alleged Canadian trade practices disadvantaging U.S. exports.
A New Jersey food importer filed a lawsuit on Tuesday in the U.S. Court of International Trade, arguing that President Donald Trump illegally relied on a superseded 1930 statute to impose 50 percent tariffs on approximately $20 billion worth of Canadian goods. The case, titled Gellert Global Group Corp. v. Trump, challenges the administration’s invocation of Section 338 of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, a provision that has never been used by a sitting president to levy tariffs in the 96 years since its enactment. The Liberty Justice Center, a public interest law group, filed the suit on behalf of Gellert Global Group, a third-generation family business that imports Canadian cheese. The plaintiffs contend that the tariffs are unlawful because Congress effectively repealed Section 338 through later trade legislation and because the administration failed to adhere to the procedural requirements of the statute itself. The legal dispute centers on the validity of using a Depression-era law to address modern trade conflicts. The Liberty Justice Center argues that Section 338 was superseded by subsequent statutes, specifically the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Under the doctrine of implied repeal, the lawsuit states that where later legislation covers the same subject matter and creates irreconcilable conflicts, the earlier law is invalidated. Section 301, the current statutory remedy for unfair foreign trade practices, mandates specific safeguards including formal investigations and opportunities for public comment. The plaintiffs assert that the administration bypassed these protections by reviving a dormant statute that no prior president had utilized for tariff purposes. Jeffrey M. Schwab, the Liberty Justice Center’s director of litigation, stated that Congress already provided the executive branch with tools to respond to unfair trade practices. He noted that the administration cannot skip congressional safeguards by reaching for a 1930 statute that had never been employed to impose a tariff. The lawsuit further contends that even if Section 338 remained legally operative, Trump’s tariffs exceed the authority granted by the provision. The complaint alleges that the Canadian actions cited by the administration do not constitute discrimination against U.S. goods as defined by the law, nor do the tariffs appropriately offset those actions. Additionally, the plaintiffs argue that the administration’s interpretation of Section 338 violates the major questions doctrine and the constitutional nondelegation doctrine, which prohibits Congress from granting the president unlimited tariff power without an intelligible guiding principle. Gellert Global Group, based in New Jersey, imports various types of Canadian cheese, including brie, camembert, and goat’s milk cheese. The company’s complaint details that it paid at least $520,538 in duties on 22 shipments between September 16 and October 11. The firm estimates that the ongoing tariffs could cost it $40 million annually. Thomas Gellert, the company’s co-chief executive officer, said the tariffs disrupted long-standing supplier relationships and created uncertainty throughout the supply chain. One of the company’s Ontario-based brie suppliers uses milk from upstate New York, processes it in Canada, and exports the finished product to the United States, illustrating the complex cross-border nature of the industry. The timeline of the trade conflict dates back to August, when trade negotiations between the United States and Canada collapsed. In response, Trump invoked Section 338 to impose 50 percent tariffs on Canadian dairy, automotive, and alcoholic beverage products. The measure prompted immediate dollar-for-dollar retaliation from Ottawa, straining relations between the two nations. In September, the administration expanded the list of affected imports. Later, in late September, Trump announced an outright ban on nearly $1 billion worth of Canadian products, including alcoholic beverages, dairy items, and motorcycles. The lawsuit does not directly challenge the import bans, though the plaintiffs suggest their legality is tied to the underlying tariffs. The White House maintains that Section 338 is an appropriate legal mechanism to respond to what it characterizes as Canadian discrimination against U.S. exports. Officials stated that the administration would vigorously defend the tariffs. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative did not immediately respond to requests for comment regarding the specific legal arguments raised in the complaint. The Department of Justice, which represents the administration in such matters, has not issued a statement addressing the claim that the statute was implicitly repealed by later laws. This lawsuit is the first to challenge the specific Section 338 tariffs on Canadian goods, but it joins a broader wave of legal challenges against the administration’s trade policies. Since returning to office in 2025, Trump has attempted to establish a comprehensive wall of protective tariffs. Initially, he relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to declare trade deficits a national emergency. The Supreme Court struck down those tariffs in February, ruling that the act does not authorize import taxes and ordering the refund of billions of dollars to importers. Following that defeat, the administration shifted to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, citing balance-of-payments deficits. The Court of International Trade ruled in May that those tariffs were illegal because the administration failed to identify qualifying deficits. Subsequently, the administration invoked Section 301 to impose tariffs on 86 trading partners, alleging failures to prohibit imports made with forced labor. Those tariffs are currently under review by the courts. The Liberty Justice Center has represented challengers in each of these previous rounds, securing victories that led to the invalidation of the IEEPA tariffs. The organization is seeking class-action certification in the current case, which would extend the relief to all importers subject to the Section 338 measures, potentially blocking enforcement of the tariffs nationwide. Canada has implemented its own retaliatory measures, imposing tariffs on approximately $30 billion in U.S. imports with rates ranging from 15 to 50 percent. Economists estimate that these countermeasures could increase Canadian consumer prices by about 0.25 percent overall. Families with children may face annual costs of roughly $250, while lower-income households could see a reduction in disposable income exceeding 0.5 percent. Gellert Global Group stated that it is currently absorbing the tariff costs but may be forced to raise prices if the levies remain in effect. The outcome of the lawsuit will determine whether the 50 percent duties on Canadian goods stand or are refunded to importers.
Go to the primary sources (19)
The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.
President Donald Trump imposed 50% tariffs on Canadian goods using Section 338 of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, a 1930 law that had never been used by any previous president to impose tariffs. The Liberty Justice Center (LJC) has sued, arguing that this section was superseded by later legislation such as the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which provide the proper framework for addressing unfair trade practices. The lawsuit claims that Trump bypassed these established procedures by using an outdated statute, thereby violating legal principles regarding statutory conflicts and the nondelegation doctrine. Additionally, Trump had previously attempted to justify similar tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), but this was rejected by courts, including the Supreme Court.
Bias read (Center): The article presents both the actions taken by the Trump administration and the legal arguments against them without overtly favoring either side. It cites legal experts and judicial rulings impartially, allowing readers to form their own conclusions based on presented evidence.
Why factuality (95): The article accurately reflects the primary source document, citing the Liberty Justice Center's lawsuit against the use of Section 338, the argument that it was superseded by Section 301, and quotes from Schwab and Albrecht. It correctly identifies the legal reasoning and provides relevant historic
Why objectivity (90): The article maintains a largely neutral tone, presenting the arguments made by the Liberty Justice Center without overt bias. However, it uses terms like 'maneuver' and 'dodge' when describing the administration's actions, which slightly imply criticism. Overall, it remains mostly objective.
NewsweekIndependentCenterFactual 92Objective 9023 hr. ago
A New Jersey-based food importer, Gellert Global Group, has sued former President Donald Trump, alleging he illegally used Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to impose 50% tariffs on Canadian goods. The company claims these tariffs, applied to imported cheeses like brie and camembert, have already cost it over $520,000 in duties and could result in annual losses of $40 million. The lawsuit argues that newer trade laws enacted by Congress, such as Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, supersede Section 338 and limit presidential authority to impose such tariffs. Additionally, the suit contends that the Trump administration did not comply with Section 338’s procedural requirements, particularly the mandated 30-day delay before imposing duties on newly listed goods. The White House has stated it will defend the tariffs, asserting they are a proper response to alleged Canadian trade practices disadvantaging U.S. exports.
Bias read (Center): The article presents both the plaintiff's argument that the Trump administration improperly used Section 338 and the White House's defense of the tariffs. It includes quotes from both sides and does not favor one perspective over the other. The framing is balanced, focusing on legal arguments rather
Why factuality (92): The article accurately reflects the primary source regarding the core facts: the plaintiff (Gellert Global Group), the specific law (Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930), the tariff rate (50%), and the legal argument (supersession by newer trade laws). It adds specific details found in the lawsuit
Why objectivity (90): The tone is largely neutral and journalistic. While the headline uses the word 'Unlawfully,' this is justified by the context of a lawsuit where the plaintiff makes that accusation. The body text carefully attributes the accusations to the importer and quotes the attorney directly. It includes stand
The Liberty Justice Center (LJC) has filed the first lawsuit challenging former President Donald Trump's Section 338 tariffs imposed on Canadian imports. The case, Gellert Global Group Corp. v. Trump, argues that the tariffs are illegal based on several grounds, including that Section 338 has been superseded by later legislation and that the Canadian actions the tariffs aim to counter do not discriminate against U.S. goods. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade and could potentially block all enforcement of Section 338 tariffs if successful. The LJC has previously challenged other Trump-era tariffs, such as those under Sections 122 and 301, and has supported efforts to uphold free trade principles.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a detailed legal argument against the legality of Trump's Section 338 tariffs, citing specific legal precedents and constitutional concerns. While the author supports the lawsuit and criticizes the tariffs, the analysis remains focused on legal reasoning rather than overtly slan
Why factuality (92): The article accurately describes the lawsuit, the involvement of Gellert Global Group, and the legal challenges based on the supersession of Section 338 by later statutes. It references the author's prior work and supports the case, but it adds personal commentary and opinionated statements that go
Why objectivity (80): The article contains strong subjective language and personal endorsements, such as 'America's premier public interest law group standing up for free trade.' This introduces bias and reduces the neutrality of the piece despite accurate reporting of the facts.
A New Jersey-based food importer, Gellert Global Group, has filed a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump's use of a Depression-era provision of the Tariff Act of 1930 to impose a 50% tariff on $20 billion worth of Canadian goods. The lawsuit argues that Trump exceeded his authority under Section 338 of the act, which had not previously been used in a trade dispute. This move prompted retaliatory measures from Canada, including dollar-for-dollar tariffs on American goods. Trump later expanded the conflict by imposing an outright ban on nearly $1 billion worth of Canadian products, including dairy, alcohol, and motorcycles. Legal experts argue that the use of Section 338 lacks clear congressional authorization and procedural safeguards, and the case is being supported by the Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian advocacy group that previously challenged Trump's tariffs before the Supreme Court.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the legal challenge to Trump's use of Section 338 in a balanced manner, citing both the plaintiff's argument and the historical context of the law. It does not favor either side but provides background on the legal and economic implications of the tariffs. The framing remains un
Why factuality (90): The article accurately reports the filing of the lawsuit by Gellert Global Group, the use of Section 338, and the involvement of the Liberty Justice Center. It mentions the retaliation from Canada and the escalation of the conflict. However, it omits some specific legal arguments from the primary so
Why objectivity (85): The article presents the facts neutrally but includes phrases like 'protective tariffs' and 'wall of protective tariffs,' which may subtly favor the plaintiff's perspective. It also refers to the Liberty Justice Center as a 'libertarian advocacy group,' which could influence reader perception.
The Washington TimesParty-alignedCenterFactual: no official source document/info detectedObjective 85yesterday
A New Jersey-based food importer has filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump, contesting his authority to impose a 50% tariff on $20 billion worth of Canadian goods under a Depression-era law. The legal challenge questions the legality of Trump's actions regarding these trade measures. The case centers on whether the president had the constitutional or statutory power to enact such high tariffs unilaterally. This action reflects broader concerns over executive power in trade policy and could influence future regulatory decisions.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual account of a legal challenge without overtly favoring either side. It does not include biased language, one-sided sourcing, or editorial commentary that would indicate a clear ideological lean.
Why factuality: no official source document/info detected
Why objectivity (85): The article presents the information in a neutral manner, focusing on the facts of the lawsuit without injecting significant opinion or bias. It avoids taking a stance on the legality of the tariffs, maintaining a balanced approach.
How each side covered it
The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.
progressive
center
conservative
★
How each side covered it
Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.
United States
