The facts
According to an Al Jazeera report dated 20 Oct 2026, Gellert Global Group, a New Jersey‑based importer of Canadian cheese, filed a lawsuit on Tuesday in the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York. The complaint says President Donald Trump used Section 338 of the Smoot‑Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 to impose 50 percent tariffs on a range of Canadian products, including dairy, furniture, clothing and wine. Between 16 Sept and 11 Oct, Gellert paid more than $520,000 in duties. Co‑CEO Thomas Gellert told a press release that the tariffs have raised costs and disrupted long‑standing supply‑chain relationships. The suit is brought on behalf of Gellert by the Liberty Justice Center; its chairman Sara Albrecht and senior counsel Jeffrey Schwab argue that the president cannot bypass congressional safeguards in later statutes such as Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The complaint notes the administration began collecting tariffs on cheese only seven days after adding it to the list, violating the law’s 30‑day waiting requirement. The White House declined comment, according to Reuters. Gellert seeks a declaration that the tariffs are illegal, an injunction against further collection, and refunds with interest. The case follows earlier challenges, including a February 2026 Supreme Court decision that struck down most of the 2025 tariffs and a trade‑court ruling against a temporary 10 percent global tariff.
Our take
The lawsuit reads like a courtroom drama starring a former president who apparently thinks a 96‑year‑old statute is a free‑for‑all cheat code. Gellert Global Group, a modest New Jersey cheese importer, is now forced to fight a tariff regime that slaps a 50 percent levy on a swath of Canadian goods – a fucking move the company says was rolled out without the congressional oversight the law itself demands. The Liberty Justice Center, a nonprofit legal group, is stepping in to argue that Trump’s use of Section 338 of the Smoot‑Hawley Tariff Act sidestepped modern trade safeguards like Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, which require investigations and public comment. The complaint even points out that the administration started collecting cheese duties after just seven days, blatantly ignoring the statute’s 30‑day waiting period. If the court agrees, it could not only halt the current tariffs but also force the Treasury to refund the $520,000 already paid, plus interest – a financial lifeline for a company that says its relationships with suppliers and customers have been “disrupted overnight.” This isn’t the first legal pushback against Trump’s tariff strategy; a February 2026 Supreme Court ruling already knocked down most of the 2025 tariffs, and a trade‑court previously rejected a temporary 10 percent global tariff. The pattern suggests that courts are increasingly unwilling to let an executive branch weaponize antiquated statutes for political leverage. Should the judges side with Gellert, it would reinforce the principle that even a president must respect the procedural safeguards built into newer trade laws. In the meantime, the cheese market remains in limbo, and Canadian exporters are watching closely, hoping the legal tide will turn before their products become permanent victims of a tariff‑driven price hike. The outcome could set a precedent that curtails future attempts to resurrect dormant trade statutes for short‑term political gain.
