New Jersey Cheese Importer Takes Trump to Court Over Dusty Tariff Law Nobody’s Ever Used

A third-generation New Jersey cheese importer just threw down the gauntlet against President Trump’s tariff strategy, and honestly, it’s about time someone asked the hard questions about executive overreach in trade policy.

The Gellert Global Group filed suit Tuesday in the U.S. Court of International Trade, challenging Trump’s authority to slap a 50 percent tariff on Canadian goods using Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930. That’s right, 1930. We’re talking about a law that’s been collecting dust since before your grandparents were born, a statute so obscure that no president has ever actually used it in a trade dispute. Until now.

Here’s where it gets interesting. Trump reached for Section 338 back in August after exhausting other options, targeting $20 billion worth of Canadian imports. Canada hit back dollar for dollar, because that’s what trading partners do when you surprise them with a trade war. Then Trump escalated last month by banning nearly $1 billion worth of Canadian products outright. We’re talking cheese, whiskey, motorcycles. The kind of stuff Americans actually want to buy.

The Liberty Justice Center is representing Gellert, and they’ve got a compelling argument. Sara Albrecht, who chairs the organization, puts it plainly: no president should be able to dust off some forgotten statute and weaponize it without following the rules Congress actually intended. And she’s got credibility here. This same group successfully challenged Trump’s earlier tariff efforts before the Supreme Court just this year.

You know what’s really happening? Trump’s been scrambling for legal authority ever since the Supreme Court struck down his national emergency tariffs in February. Those tariffs, which hit almost every country on Earth with double-digit rates, were built on the premise that America’s trade deficits constituted an emergency. The Court disagreed, and the administration had to refund billions to importers who’d already paid up.

So Trump went shopping in the legal archives. In July, he found justification to hit dozens of trading partners with tariffs of 10 to 12.5 percent, claiming they hadn’t done enough about forced labor. Those tariffs are getting challenged too, by the way. Then came Section 338, deployed against Canada for supposedly discriminating against U.S. dairy, autos, and alcohol.

The constitutional issue here cuts deep. Congress originally held tariff authority under the Constitution. Over the decades, lawmakers ceded some of that power to presidents through various trade laws. But here’s the catch: those newer laws came with guardrails. They limited presidential action to specific circumstances like national security threats or currency crises. They required investigations, procedural requirements, proper justification.

The Liberty Justice Center argues that these modern trade laws superseded Section 338 entirely, rendering it obsolete. It’s a solid conservative legal argument rooted in limiting executive power and respecting congressional intent. When Congress passes new legislation that covers the same ground as old statutes, the new stuff wins. That’s basic statutory interpretation.

The White House and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative haven’t commented yet, which tells you they’re probably scrambling to mount a defense for using a law that’s been legally dormant since the Depression.

Look, I support strong borders and strategic use of tariffs when they serve legitimate national interests. Free markets work best when they’re fair markets, and sometimes you need leverage to pry open closed trading systems. But there’s a right way and a wrong way to do this.

Section 338 exists in a legal gray zone precisely because nobody’s touched it in nearly a century. Meanwhile, Congress spent decades crafting modern trade law with actual checks and balances. Trump’s team essentially bypassed all that by reaching for antique legislation nobody expected to see again.

The Gellert family business isn’t some multinational conglomerate trying to protect profit margins. They’re a family operation importing Canadian cheese, caught in the crossfire of a trade dispute that’s straining relations with our closest ally and longest-undefended border. They’ve got skin in the game, real consequences from policy decisions made without the procedural safeguards Congress intended.

This case matters beyond cheese imports. It’s about whether presidents can cherry-pick forgotten laws to expand executive power without limit. It’s about whether the constitutional balance between Congress and the White House means anything when it’s inconvenient. And it’s about whether we govern by consistent legal principles or by whatever statutory archaeology turns up when you need a workaround.

The Court of International Trade will decide whether Trump’s Section 338 gambit holds up. Given how the Supreme Court already slapped down his emergency tariffs earlier this year, the administration should be nervous. Judges tend to frown on creative reinterpretations of obsolete laws that sidestep modern statutory frameworks.

Trade policy should serve American interests through strength and consistency, not legal improvisation that turns allies into adversaries over cheese and whiskey.

Related: Houston Schools Finally Worked and Now Democrats Want to Destroy It All