A New Jersey-based food importer has filed a legal challenge against President Donald Trump’s imposition of steep tariffs on Canadian goods, questioning the administration’s authority to invoke a rarely used provision of U.S. trade law. The lawsuit, brought by Gellert Global Group, was filed on Tuesday with the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, a specialized federal court handling trade disputes.

The case centers on tariffs imposed under Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, a provision that had been largely dormant until President Trump applied it this year amid escalating trade tensions with Canada. In August, the president imposed a 50 percent duty on approximately $20 billion worth of Canadian imports, including dairy products, alcoholic beverages, hockey sticks, motorcycles, and paper goods. These tariffs were justified on grounds that Canada had enacted discriminatory practices against certain American products. The administration later escalated measures by banning nearly $1 billion in additional Canadian goods.

This move set off retaliatory tariffs from Canada, further straining economic relations between the two longtime allies. The Gellert Global Group, a third-generation family importer specializing in Canadian cheese, argues that the tariffs could cost the company an estimated $40 million annually. The lawsuit contends that President Trump’s use of Section 338 is legally flawed both in implementation and in its constitutional basis, asserting that the provision was not intended to grant the president such expansive tariff powers without Congressional approval.

Legal advocates challenging the tariffs argue that the administration bypassed the safeguards embedded in the Trade Act of 1974, particularly Section 301, which governs tariffs in response to unfair foreign trade practices following a comprehensive investigation process. According to the lawsuit, the president’s reliance on the older Section 338 provision allowed him to circumvent statutory procedures designed to ensure transparency and due process. The complaint also questions whether the Canadian regulatory measures cited by the administration truly constitute discrimination as defined under the law.

This case comes amid a broader pattern of litigation against the Trump administration’s tariff policies. Courts have previously ruled against other tariffs imposed during the president’s tenure, resulting in refunds with added interest to affected businesses. Notably, a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year struck down tariffs based on an economic emergency declaration, prompting subsequent adjustments in the administration’s approach.

The White House and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative have not commented publicly on the current lawsuit. The outcome hinges on the Court of International Trade’s interpretation of presidential authority under the older statute, with potential implications for ongoing and future trade disputes involving Canada and other countries. A ruling against the administration could require repayment of collected duties and limit the executive branch’s ability to impose tariffs without clear Congressional mandate. Conversely, a decision upholding the tariffs may embolden further use of Section 338 and similar provisions in bilateral trade conflicts.