A New Jersey Cheese Importer Sues Over Trump's 50% Canada Tariffs. Congress Should Settle Who Holds the Power.

The facts come first below. My opinion follows in the section marked as opinion.

A family-owned New Jersey food importer sued the Trump administration on Tuesday over the 50% tariffs President Donald Trump placed on a range of Canadian goods, asking the U.S. Court of International Trade to declare them unlawful and order refunds for duties already paid, with interest, CNBC reported.

The plaintiff, Gellert Global Group, is a third-generation family business that pays the 50% tariff on cheese it imports from Canada. It also faces Canada's retaliatory tariffs on American-made cheese it sells north of the border, the BBC reported.

The law at issue

Trump signed three proclamations on July 20 under Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, aimed at what he called unfair treatment in the auto, alcohol and dairy sectors. The tariffs took effect Aug. 22, after last-ditch trade talks with Canadian officials fell apart. They hit Canadian hockey sticks, wine, honey, wigs and other products. According to CNBC, it was the first time the 96-year-old law had ever been used to impose a tariff. Canada later answered with "dollar for dollar" tariffs on U.S. goods.

The BBC reported that the White House levy covers some $20 billion of Canadian goods. Section 338 is aimed at protecting American business against foreign discrimination, but the plaintiffs argue it does not allow the executive branch "to impose sweeping tariffs or import restrictions whenever a trade dispute arises," the BBC reported.

What the lawsuit argues

The complaint says "Section 338 is a relic of the retaliation-based tariff policy" that was "impliedly repealed" by later laws, CNBC reported. It also argues that even if the old law still stands, the administration did not meet its terms. Two of the Canadian actions Trump cited are "Canada's responses to the President's own tariffs, including tariffs the Supreme Court has held unlawful, and retaliation is not discrimination," the suit contends, according to CNBC.

The Liberty Justice Center, which filed the case, says Section 338 requires a 30-day wait before tariffs apply to newly added products. It says the administration added products including Gellert's cheeses on Sept. 8, but ordered collection to begin Sept. 15, seven days later. The group also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to block collection of the tariffs.

The costs are not small. Gellert imported $71 million worth of Canadian cheese in 2025 and paid no tariffs on it under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, the complaint says. Under the tariffs, "Gellert now pays a 50 percent duty on the entered value of its Canadian cheese, an estimated $40 million per year," according to the suit, as quoted by CNBC. The company plans to absorb the costs through the end of the year but says that is "not sustainable long term."

Co-chief executive Thomas Gellert said, "These tariffs disrupt those relationships overnight and create costs and uncertainty that ripple through the entire supply chain," the BBC reported.

The same legal group won its challenge to Trump's "reciprocal" tariffs, which the Supreme Court struck down in February. The administration is refunding an estimated $166 billion collected under those duties, CNBC reported. "This case is not about the president. It is about the presidency," the group's CEO, Sara Albrecht, said. The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment from CNBC or the BBC.

Opinion: Let the court rule, then let Congress lead

There is a fair case for the president's goal. American dairy farmers and automakers have long complained about how they are treated in Canada, and a president who presses an ally to trade fairly is doing his job. Scripture itself condemns crooked dealing: "A false balance is abomination to the LORD."

But how a thing is done matters too. The Constitution gives Congress the power to lay duties, and conservatives have always said the limits on power matter most when your own side holds it. When a 96-year-old law that had never once been used to set a tariff suddenly carries a $20 billion trade fight, it is fair to ask whether Congress ever meant it to. The last major test of a novel tariff power ended with the Supreme Court striking it down and the government owing an estimated $166 billion in refunds. That is a costly way to learn a lesson.

And the costs land on real people. One family company says it now pays an estimated $40 million a year on cheese that crossed duty-free under the USMCA trade pact. Those costs show up eventually at the grocery store. Jesus asked which of us, intending to build a tower, "sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost."

The court should decide this case quickly, on the law and not on politics. Whatever it rules, Congress should stop handing its work to the White House and vote, on the record, on whether these tariffs are worth what they cost. Voters are already unhappy with Washington, as our story NBC Poll: 71% Say Wrong Track, Trump Approval at 34% Before Midterms showed. A clear vote would at least tell them who to hold accountable.