A New Jersey food importer sues over Trump’s 50% tariffs on Canadian goods under a 1930 law

A New Jersey food importer filed a lawsuit on Tuesday challenging President Donald Trump’s power to invoke a Depression-era law to levy a 50% tariff on Canadian goods³. The company is New Jersey-based Gellert Global Group, which objects to the use of the law to levy a 50% tariff on a range of Canadian goods⁴.

The lawsuit argues that the White House exceeded its authority in imposing the latest tariffs on Canada and caused “immediate harm to American businesses”¹. It is the latest legal challenge to the president’s tariffs¹.

The case concerns Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which Trump invoked over the summer to impose 50% tariffs². The suit has been described as a challenge to $40 million in cheese duties under that law^5,6.

Why it matters to investors

The legal basis for the tariffs is unusual. The Tariff Act of 1930 is known as Smoot-Hawley, and no president had used the provision to impose a tariff in the 96 years since Congress passed it⁵. A court ruling on that provision would decide whether the administration can keep using it^3,5.

The stakes for importers are large. A 50% tariff applies to a range of Canadian goods^2,4, and the duties described in the suit amount to $40 million on cheese⁵.

The challenge also tests a wider argument about presidential power. The importer’s case rests on the claim that the White House went beyond what the law allows^1,3. The suit says the harm to American businesses is immediate, not a distant risk¹.

For food companies and retailers that buy from Canada, the outcome bears directly on costs. The case was brought by a food importer, and the duties it disputes fall on food products^3,5. The suit goes to the heart of the president’s power to levy the tariff at all^1,3.

What to watch

The first step is the court’s response, including whether it moves quickly given the claim of immediate harm¹. The importer is challenging duties under a provision that went unused for 96 years before this one⁵.

The second is whether other importers join or file similar suits. The case is the latest in a series of legal challenges to the tariffs¹, and the scale of the 50% rate on Canadian goods gives other buyers reason to watch^2,4.

The third is the administration’s legal defence of Section 338, which it invoked over the summer². A ruling on that provision would settle a question of trade law that has not been tested in nearly a century^5,6.