Constitutional Boundaries and Canadian Cheese: The White House Faces Another Tariff Suit

When the executive branch decides to turn international trade into an arena for statutory improvisation, private enterprise inevitably pays the price. The latest attempt to wield state power over global markets has landed back where such interventions usually belong: in a federal court.

The Liberty Justice Center has launched a lawsuit in the US Court of International Trade, targeting the White House’s 50 percent tariffs on roughly $20 billion worth of Canadian imports. Acting on behalf of Gellert Global Group, a third-generation New Jersey food enterprise, the legal action challenges the administrative gymnastics used to justify the punitive duties. For Gellert, a firm that imports Canadian cheese while exporting American cheese north of the border, the policy delivered a double blow: massive border levies at home and dollar-for-dollar retaliatory tariffs enacted by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney.

The dispute stems from the breakdown of bilateral trade negotiations in August, after which Washington slapped sweeping duties on Canadian goods ranging from dairy and wine to hockey sticks. To bypass statutory hurdles, administration lawyers dusted off Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930—a dormant, Hoover-era provision originally designed to protect American firms against foreign discrimination.

The legal challenge argues that Section 338 was never intended as a blank check for executive trade engineering. Beyond that, the lawsuit contends that the 1930 statute was effectively superseded by Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Even if the old law were somehow applicable, the White House failed to adhere to its procedural safeguards: Section 338 mandates a 30-day waiting period before enforcement, yet cheese was added to the target list a mere week before collection began.

This is not the first time the Liberty Justice Center has challenged Washington's trade tactics. In February, the group successfully overturned sweeping tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. As Liberty Justice Center chief executive Sara Albrecht observed, the Constitution gives tariff power to Congress. The executive branch cannot keep moving the same policy from one statute to another and pretend the limits disappear.

Beyond the constitutional friction, the suit highlights the immediate distortions that discretionary trade policy inflicts on domestic commerce. Co-chief executive Thomas Gellert noted that decades spent constructing supply chains were disrupted overnight, introducing artificial costs and systemic uncertainty across the market. With a motion for a preliminary injunction now pending to block collection and secure refunds with interest, the court must once again decide whether executive discretion can routinely override congressional authority over trade.

Written by Freya Stensrud freya.stensrud@alpineweekly.com