U.S. Food Importer Sues Trump to Overturn 50% Tariffs on Canadian Goods

35,000+ smart investors are already getting financial news, market signals, and macro shifts in the economy that could impact their money next with our FREE weekly newsletter. Get ahead of what the crowd finds out too late. Click Here to Subscribe for FREE.

Canadian cheese has become part of a much larger fight over presidential power. Gellert Global Group Corp., a food importer headquartered in New Jersey, sued President Donald Trump’s administration in the U.S. Court of International Trade on October 20, 2026, seeking to overturn additional 50% tariffs on selected Canadian goods. The company says the duties threaten established supplier relationships and impose costs on American businesses. Its challenge asks whether a trade law dating to 1930 permits the administration’s actions—and whether officials followed that law’s limits. With the lawsuit newly filed, the stakes extend from a federal courtroom to the businesses that keep grocery shelves and restaurant kitchens supplied.

The Family Business Behind the Challenge

Gellert describes itself as a third-generation, family-run food business with combined annual revenue exceeding US$1.7 billion. Headquartered in Elizabeth, New Jersey, it supplies customers including retailers, food distributors, hotels, restaurant chains and manufacturers. The company says its range includes more than 4,000 food items sourced from over 60 countries. Those figures give the dispute a practical setting: a large importing operation connecting overseas producers with businesses that serve Americans every day across the country.

Its reach also helps explain why a tariff on one category can matter beyond the customs desk. A restaurant needs dependable ingredients; a retailer needs products available when customers expect them. For an importer serving both, changes in purchasing costs can complicate those commitments. Chairman George G. Gellert describes those relationships in personal terms: “Our customers are personal friends.” Represented by the Liberty Justice Center, this established international food operation is asking the courts to protect the conditions under which it buys, distributes and sells its products.

What the 50% Tariff Actually Covers

The challenged duties apply to specified Canadian products identified in presidential proclamations and their annexes. When the administration announced three Section 338 actions on July 20, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative said they would cover nearly US$20 billion in imports from Canada. That estimate describes the value of affected goods. The measures were presented as responses to Canadian treatment of American alcoholic beverages, dairy products and motor vehicles, although the resulting tariff lists reach products beyond those disputes.

The original duties were scheduled to begin August 19. A three-day suspension pushed their implementation to August 22, and September changes altered the products covered. That sequence matters for importers: the applicable product classification and entry date determine whether a shipment falls within a particular measure. A Canadian origin alone does not answer every tariff question. Gellert’s lawsuit targets these Section 338 duties, so its requested relief should be understood in relation to those measures rather than every tariff affecting trade between the two countries.

A Projected US$40 Million Annual Bill

Gellert’s complaint estimates that the new duties will cost it about US$40 million a year. That is a projection, separate from the payments already documented in its filing. The company says it paid at least US$520,538 in Section 338 duties on 22 Canadian cheese entries between September 16 and October 11. It also reports importing roughly US$71 million worth of Canadian cheese in 2025, illustrating the importance of this trade to its business.

The company says it plans to absorb the tariff costs through the end of 2026 while delaying hiring and investment. The filing presents these effects as evidence of harm from the duties. The mechanics are straightforward: an additional 50% duty on a hypothetical shipment with a customs value of US$100,000 adds US$50,000 in tariff costs, before other applicable charges. That calculation does not establish a 50% increase in the supermarket price. How much ultimately reaches customers depends on pricing decisions and how businesses distribute or absorb the expense.

The American Milk Inside Canadian Brie

One example supplied by Gellert’s lawyers shows how closely the two countries’ food businesses are connected. A Canadian cheese supplier buys milk from dairy farmers in upstate New York, turns it into brie in Canada and ships the finished cheese back to the United States. The product crosses the border as part of a production relationship involving both countries. If purchases of that cheese decline, the example suggests that pressure could also reach the American farms supplying its milk.

The company also says Canadian retaliatory tariffs affect American-made cheeses sold by its Canadian division. Its exposure therefore runs in both directions, tying the dispute to producers seeking customers across the border. These are the company’s examples of commercial harm, rather than measured economy-wide losses. They nevertheless explain why an import tax can concern an American farmer as well as a Canadian processor. Co-chief executive Thomas Gellert described the measures as creating “costs and uncertainty that ripple through the entire supply chain.”

The 1930 Law at the Heart of the Case

Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 gives the president authority to respond to specified forms of foreign discrimination against American commerce. Its text requires findings about unequal treatment or disadvantages compared with other countries, together with a determination that action serves the public interest. It permits additional duties intended to offset the resulting burden, capped at 50% of the goods’ value. That ceiling explains the headline rate, but the conditions attached to the power are equally central.

The Associated Press described the revived tariff authority as untested in court. Its age alone does not decide whether it can lawfully be used; the dispute turns on what Congress authorized and whether the administration satisfied those requirements. The statute also includes a waiting period and provisions for changing presidential proclamations. Each becomes relevant when an administration expands a product list. For businesses facing new charges, the legal limits determine how quickly costs can arrive and how broadly a presidential decision can reach.

Why the Lawsuit Points to a Newer Trade Law

A central argument concerns Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, a later framework for responding to unfair foreign trade practices. Gellert’s lawyers contend that Congress displaced Section 338, or at least made Section 301’s procedures controlling for the Canadian measures at issue. Their position is that the administration cannot avoid those safeguards simply by selecting the older statute. Whether the laws have that relationship is a contested legal question, rather than an established repeal announced by the lawsuit.

Section 301 proceedings can involve investigations, public comments and hearings. Those steps give affected businesses an opportunity to explain how proposed duties would operate in practice. For example, an importer could describe the availability of replacement suppliers or the consequences of adding a particular ingredient to a tariff list. The procedural argument therefore has a commercial purpose: it concerns when businesses get to present evidence before costs change. Gellert is asking the court to decide whether those protections should have governed this action against Canada.

Seven Days Versus a 30-day Waiting Period

The timing challenge is especially concrete. On September 8, the administration issued proclamations adding products, including cheeses Gellert imports, to the tariff lists. Collection on the newly listed goods began September 15—seven days later. Section 338 specifies a 30-day interval after a proclamation. Gellert argues that newly added products must receive that full interval, even when the president is amending an earlier action. The September proclamation itself confirms the September 15 effective date, placing the dispute squarely on how the waiting requirement applies.

The complaint says Gellert paid more than US$381,000 on affected entries from September 15 through October 7. That figure concerns the allegedly premature collection period, rather than the company’s entire tariff bill. This claim could matter even if the court rejects broader attacks on the administration’s authority: a ruling about collection dates would address a narrower set of payments. It illustrates how a dispute over presidential power can also turn on an ordinary calendar and the dates recorded on customs entries.

The Administration’s Case for Targeting Canada

The White House told the Associated Press that the administration would vigorously defend the tariffs in court. In a July 20 statement, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer pointed to Canadian restrictions on American alcohol, more favorable market access for European dairy products, and measures affecting U.S. vehicle exports. He argued that the action would protect American workers, farmers and businesses. The presidential proclamations similarly describe the duties as offsetting disadvantages imposed on U.S. commerce, establishing the government’s stated basis for using Section 338.

Gellert challenges whether those policies justify this response. Its lawyers also highlight that Canadian cheese was added to lists associated with alcohol and automobile disputes. That mismatch is striking, but it does not by itself establish illegality: Section 338 expressly allows duties on any products of the foreign country. The more substantial disagreement concerns whether the administration demonstrated qualifying discrimination and connected the duties to the burden it sought to offset. The case therefore requires more than deciding whether trade relations were strained; it asks whether the chosen response satisfied the statute.

An Earlier Supreme Court Ruling Sets the Backdrop

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court held in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and its companion case that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not authorize the president to impose tariffs. The decision emphasized Congress’s constitutional role in taxation and examined the authority granted by that particular law. It provides context for the new challenge, but does not settle it. Section 338 expressly discusses additional duties, giving this dispute a different statutory starting point.

Gellert also advances an alternative constitutional argument: if Section 338 is read to allow the administration’s broad exercise of power, the company says that interpretation would delegate legislative authority without adequate limits. That remains a claim for judicial consideration. The distinction matters because a court can examine whether an action exceeds a statute without deciding that the statute itself is unconstitutional. For future administrations, the eventual reasoning could help define the boundaries of this trade power. For Gellert, those questions are attached to a continuing commercial expense.

What Gellert is Asking the Court To Do

Gellert wants the court to declare the challenged tariffs unlawful, stop their collection and order refunds with applicable interest. Its lawyers say they filed requests for a preliminary injunction and summary judgment alongside the complaint. The requested injunction would provide a temporary halt while the challenge proceeds. The Liberty Justice Center’s case page listed the litigation as pending on October 21. The immediate concern for the business is how long it must keep paying while those legal questions are resolved.

The complaint also seeks permission to represent other affected importers through a class action. Under the trade court’s rules, certification requires a judicial decision; placing class allegations in a complaint does not itself establish a certified class. The potential consequences therefore extend beyond Gellert, but depend on what the court decides about both liability and relief. For the businesses involved, the practical questions are clear: whether future collections will stop, which past payments might be returned, and when they can plan purchases with greater confidence. Those answers will determine how a legal challenge changes everyday trade.

This Options Discord Chat is The Real Deal

While the internet is scoured with trading chat rooms, many of which even charge upwards of thousands of dollars to join, this smaller options trading discord chatroom is the real deal and actually providing valuable trade setups, education, and community without the noise and spam of the larger more expensive rooms. With a incredibly low-cost monthly fee, Options Trading Club (click here to see their reviews) requires an application to join ensuring that every member is dedicated and serious about taking their trading to the next level. If you are looking for a change in your trading strategies, then click here to apply for a membership.