Gellert Global Challenges Trumps 50 Percent Canada Tariffs

A New Jersey food importer has filed a federal trade lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump's 50 percent tariffs on selected Canadian goods, arguing that the administration exceeded its legal authority by invoking a rarely used provision of a 1930 trade law. Gellert Global Group filed the case on October 20, 2026, in the U.S. Court of International Trade, seeking to invalidate the duties and recover payments already made.

The complaint targets Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which Trump invoked in July to impose duties on products including Canadian cheese, wine, honey, hockey sticks and wigs. The tariffs took effect on August 22 after trade negotiations between U.S. and Canadian officials in Washington collapsed, according to CNBC.

Gellert Global estimates that the duties could cost the company $40 million annually on Canadian cheese imports alone. The company imported $71 million worth of Canadian cheese in 2025 and says it previously paid no tariffs on those products under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA.

The complaint describes Section 338 as a provision that Congress has effectively superseded through subsequent legislation. It asks the court to declare the tariffs unlawful, halt their enforcement and require the administration to refund collected duties with interest.

Sara Albrecht, chief executive of the Liberty Justice Center, which represents Gellert Global, said the dispute concerns the limits of executive authority rather than the individual president.

"This case is not about the president. It is about the presidency," said Sara Albrecht, CEO of the Liberty Justice Center.

Albrecht's organization argues that presidents cannot revive dormant statutory powers to impose broad import restrictions without observing the limits established by Congress. The legal group has previously challenged Trump's trade policies and is pursuing other cases involving the administration's use of federal laws to impose tariffs.

The complaint also disputes whether Canada's actions satisfy Section 338's legal requirements. The provision permits tariffs when a foreign country imposes unreasonable charges or trade restrictions on U.S. commerce or otherwise disadvantages American products through its customs practices.

According to the lawsuit, Canada's measures cited by the administration do not establish the discrimination required by the statute. The filing argues that some Canadian tariffs were responses to earlier U.S. duties, including measures that the Supreme Court had ruled unlawful, and that retaliation does not itself constitute discrimination.

The dispute also involves dairy market access negotiated under USMCA. Gellert Global argues that the agreement gives American cheese better access to Canada than most other countries receive, undermining the administration's justification for imposing additional duties on Canadian dairy products.

Trump signed three presidential proclamations on July 20 targeting different groups of Canadian imports in response to alleged unfair treatment in the U.S. automotive, alcohol and dairy sectors. Canada subsequently imposed retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods, escalating tensions between the two trading partners.

The legal challenge follows a separate Supreme Court ruling in February that struck down Trump's reciprocal tariffs. The federal government is working to refund an estimated $166 billion collected under those duties, according to CNBC.

Gellert Global says it intends to absorb the additional costs through the end of 2026 but cannot sustain that approach indefinitely. Its complaint warns that continued tariffs could force price increases, reduce sales, weaken customer loyalty and disrupt supply chains if producers cut output or leave the market.

The White House had not responded to CNBC's request for comment as of October 20. The U.S. Court of International Trade will consider the challenge to both the administration's implementation of Section 338 and the legal basis for using the provision to impose the tariffs.