A legal challenge against the tariffs imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump on Canada has been initiated in the United States Court of International Trade. The lawsuit, filed by the non-profit Liberty Justice Center on behalf of Gellert Global Group, a U.S. food importer, argues that Trump’s utilization of a trade statute from the 1930s exceeds his presidential authority. Trump imposed a 50 percent tariff on various Canadian goods using Section 338 after trade negotiations faltered in August, subsequently extending the measure to include bans on certain Canadian products like motorcycles and alcohol in the following month.
The lawsuit contends that the Canadian policies cited by the White House as justifying the tariffs do not warrant the extensive trade restrictions imposed by the Trump administration. It highlights that some of the Canadian policies, such as auto quotas and liquor bans, were responses to Trump’s initial tariff actions. Additionally, it notes that Canada’s dairy supply management system was established under the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement, negotiated during Trump’s first administration.
The lawsuit emphasizes the real-world impacts of these tariffs on importers and consumers in both countries, underscoring the historical relationship between the U.S. and Canada. While acknowledging tariffs as a central policy of the Trump administration, Liberty Justice Center CEO Sara Albrecht asserts that the implementation of these tariffs in this context violates the U.S. Constitution. A Trump administration official has vowed to vigorously defend the president’s actions in court, reaffirming Trump’s commitment to supporting American workers and industries.
The legal action also raises broader concerns beyond Canada, warning of the potential unchecked use of Section 338 by future presidents to impose tariffs without sufficient congressional oversight. The lawsuit seeks a declaration that the tariffs are unlawful and requests a refund. Notably, the Liberty Justice Center has previously challenged Trump’s tariff actions using the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, resulting in a Supreme Court ruling against the administration’s use of the statute due to constitutional limitations.