Section 338 vs Section 301 vs Section 232 vs IEEPA, What Each Tariff Law Allows After the 2026 Supreme Court Ruling

The Short Version for General Readers

• A president cannot simply “impose a tariff.” Congress passed several different laws, and each has its own trigger, process and limits.
• On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs. It did not strike down tariffs imposed under other laws such as Sections 232 and 301.
• On October 20, 2026, Gellert Global Group Corp. sued in the Court of International Trade over 50% tariffs on Canadian goods under Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The case is Gellert Global Group Corp. v. Trump, No. 26-cv-04636. No ruling had been verified as of October 21, 2026.
• Importers (not ordinary shoppers) pay tariffs to Customs. There is no consumer claim form for the Section 338 case.

What Should Importers Do Now? (Action Summary)

1. Identify the legal authority for each duty on your entries (Section 338, 301, 232, 122 or the former IEEPA).
2. Preserve records: entry summaries (CBP Form 7501), invoices, bills of lading, origin documents, HTS classifications and proof of payment.
3. Calendar your dates: liquidation dates and the 180-day protest deadline under 19 U.S.C. § 1514 for each entry.
4. Do not assume a lawsuit protects you. A class suit does not automatically pause your deadlines. Ask a licensed customs attorney or broker.
5. Keep paying duties as required until a valid order changes your obligations.
6. Track the dockets for Gellert (No. 26-cv-04636) and IEEPA refund proceedings in the Court of International Trade.

Why the Differences Between Tariff Laws Matter

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court held that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. That ruling did not invalidate every Trump administration tariff. Duties under Sections 232 and 301 rest on different laws with different requirements. [1] The Gellert case shows why this matters: a tariff can be challenged under one statute without automatically invalidating tariffs imposed under another. [2]

Quick Facts: Four U.S. Tariff Laws Compared

Law	Primary purpose	Process	Key legal limit
Section 338 (Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1338)	Respond to specified foreign discrimination against U.S. commerce	Presidential proclamation; ITC monitoring role	Findings required; additional duties capped at 50% ad valorem; 30-day collection rule
Section 301 (Trade Act of 1974, 19 U.S.C. § 2411)	Respond to unfair or discriminatory foreign trade practices	USTR investigation, consultation, public comment	Statutory findings and procedures; no single universal rate cap
Section 232 (Trade Expansion Act of 1962, 19 U.S.C. § 1862)	Address imports that threaten national security	Commerce investigation and report; presidential decision	Statutory process and deadlines; no single general rate ceiling
IEEPA (50 U.S.C. §§ 1701–1708)	Emergency economic powers over unusual and extraordinary foreign threats	Emergency declaration under the National Emergencies Act	Supreme Court held on Feb. 20, 2026 that it does not authorize tariffs

These are separate authorities. A tariff must be evaluated under the statute invoked for that measure. [1][3][4][5]

What Is Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and How Much Tariff Power Does It Give?

Section 338, codified at 19 U.S.C. § 1338, is part of the Tariff Act of 1930 (Smoot-Hawley). It lets the president respond to specified forms of foreign discrimination against U.S. commerce. Unlike IEEPA, it expressly authorizes additional import duties.

• Rate cap: Section 338(d) allows additional duties up to 50% ad valorem (a percentage of customs value). The 50% is a ceiling, not a requirement.
• Offset language: Duties are tied to offsetting the burden or disadvantage caused by the discrimination. Trade law experts argue this requires tailoring the tariff to the harm.
• 30-day rule: Duties are collected 30 days after the relevant proclamation.
• Import exclusions: Section 338(b) allows excluding specified products from importation if discrimination continues.
• ITC role: Section 338(g) directs the U.S. International Trade Commission to monitor foreign discrimination and inform the president.

Why is Section 338 being used against Canadian products in 2026?

On July 20, 2026, the administration issued Proclamations 11046, 11047 and 11048, imposing 50% duties on specified Canadian products associated with alcoholic beverages, dairy and motor vehicles. The administration said Canada’s treatment of U.S. exports put American commerce at a disadvantage. For dairy, it cited Canadian tariff-rate quota allocation measures involving U.S. cheese. [3]

Collection began on August 22, 2026, after a brief suspension. Amendments in September (Proclamations 11064 and 11065) changed the product lists. News coverage has described the measures as covering roughly 5% of Canadian imports.

What Is the Gellert Global Group Section 338 Tariff Lawsuit?

Gellert Global Group Corp. v. Trump, No. 26-cv-04636, was filed October 20, 2026, in the U.S. Court of International Trade. Gellert is a New Jersey food importer of Canadian cheese. The complaint says it imports more than 15 lines of Canadian cheese, imported about $71 million of Canadian cheese in 2025 and expects about $40 million in added annual costs.

It has four principal claims:

1. Section 338 was superseded or limited by Section 301.
2. The tariffs exceed Section 338’s authority.
3. Reading Section 338 as unlimited would violate the nondelegation doctrine.
4. The government collected duties on products added in September before the 30-day period ended. [2]

These are the plaintiff’s allegations. The court has not ruled.

What refund is Gellert seeking?

The complaint says Customs collected more than $381,000 on qualifying cheese entries made between September 15 and October 7, 2026. It also says Gellert paid at least $520,538 on 22 cheese entries made between September 16 and October 11. These figures cover different periods and should not be added together.

Gellert seeks refunds with interest and preliminary relief. The complaint proposes a class of importers of record and a narrower subclass. Neither has been verified as certified, so the case is a putative class action. No public consumer claim form exists.

Related article: Ben Crump UPenn Lawsuit, Ronald Harmon’s Death, Taser Claims and What Happens Next

What Is Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974?

Section 301 (19 U.S.C. § 2411 and following sections) lets the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) address foreign acts, policies or practices that violate trade agreements or are unjustifiable, unreasonable or discriminatory and burden U.S. commerce.

How does a Section 301 investigation work?

1. Initiation: USTR starts an investigation, or acts on a petition.
2. Consultation: USTR seeks consultations with the foreign country.
3. Public participation: Notice, comments and hearings, depending on the proceeding.
4. Determination: USTR decides whether the practice is actionable. Statutory deadlines generally run about 12 months for most cases and longer for trade-agreement cases.
5. Action: Duties, import restrictions or other measures. Actions are subject to modification and periodic review.

Why does Section 301 matter in the Section 338 lawsuit?

Gellert argues Section 301 is the later, more comprehensive framework and either superseded Section 338 by implication or controls where the two overlap. The government can argue Congress never repealed Section 338. The court has not decided this. [2]

Are Section 301 tariffs still valid after the IEEPA ruling?

The ruling concerned only IEEPA. Section 301 measures remain subject to their own requirements and can be challenged on their own facts. USTR announced in July 2026 Section 301 action covering 60 economies after investigations into forced-labor import enforcement. [6]

What Is Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962?

Section 232 (19 U.S.C. § 1862) authorizes action on imports found to threaten to impair national security.

• Investigation: The Commerce Secretary has up to 270 days to report to the president.
• Decision and implementation: The president then has a statutory window to decide and another to implement.
• Scope: Best known for steel and aluminum, but it also covers autos, lumber, pharmaceuticals and other products. There is no single general percentage cap.
• Courts: Courts have historically been deferential on national-security determinations, but a measure can still be challenged for noncompliance with the statute’s requirements. [5]

Section 232 tariffs were not affected by the IEEPA holding.

What Is IEEPA, and Why Did the Supreme Court Reject It for Tariffs?

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. §§ 1701–1708) lets the president, after declaring a national emergency involving an unusual and extraordinary foreign threat, regulate or prohibit certain transactions and imports. It is traditionally used for sanctions and asset freezes. Its text does not mention tariffs or duties.

What happened in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump?

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court decided Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, consolidated with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. (Nos. 24-1287 and 25-250), by a 6-3 vote. It held that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. The Court treated tariffs as a taxing power that belongs to Congress and requires clear authorization. [1]

• Refunds: The Court did not decide whether or how importers get refunds. That was left to the Court of International Trade and Customs.
• Collection: An executive order directed ending IEEPA tariff collection, and CBP stopped collecting them effective February 24, 2026.
• Other IEEPA uses: The ruling did not invalidate IEEPA sanctions or other non-tariff economic powers.

For the consumer and refund background, see Supreme Court Tariff Ruling 2026, Trump’s Tariffs Struck Down What It Means for You, Prices, and $175 Billion in Refunds.

What Is Section 122, and How Is It Different From These Four Laws?

Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. § 2132) allows a temporary import surcharge to address large balance-of-payments problems. It is limited to 15% ad valorem and 150 days, unless Congress extends it. [7]

After the IEEPA ruling, the administration imposed a 10% global surcharge under Section 122 effective February 24, 2026, and announced an increase to 15%. Those tariffs were challenged, and the Court of International Trade reportedly ruled against them while allowing collection to continue pending appeal. By statute, the 150-day period ran out in late July 2026 unless extended by Congress.

Section 201 (the safeguard law, 19 U.S.C. § 2251 and following sections) is another tool. It lets the president provide import relief when the U.S. International Trade Commission finds increased imports are a substantial cause of serious injury to a domestic industry. It does not require a finding of unfair foreign practices. [8]

Section 338 vs Section 301 vs Section 232 vs IEEPA: Major Differences

Issue	Section 338	Section 301	Section 232	IEEPA
Source	Tariff Act of 1930	Trade Act of 1974	Trade Expansion Act of 1962	IEEPA (1977)
Trigger	Specified discrimination against U.S. commerce	Unfair foreign trade practices	Imports threatening national security	Declared emergency; foreign threat
Decision-maker	President	USTR	Commerce investigates; president decides	President
Process	Findings and proclamation	Investigation, consultation, comment	Commerce report (up to 270 days)	Emergency declaration
Rate cap	50% ad valorem	No universal cap	No single general cap	Cannot authorize tariffs
Waiting period	30 days	Depends on the action	Depends on the decision	Not applicable
Main legal issue now	Gellert lawsuit over Canada tariffs	Whether specific actions meet the statute	Whether specific measures comply	Settled for tariffs by the Supreme Court
Examples	2026 Canadian goods	Investigations of foreign trade practices	Steel, aluminum, autos	2025–2026 emergency tariffs

The exact duty on a product still depends on classification, origin, entry date, exclusions and the specific proclamation.

Can More Than One Tariff Apply to the Same Imported Product?

Potentially. Different measures can apply to the same product, and whether duties stack depends on each proclamation and its exclusions. For example, the Section 122 surcharge generally stacked on top of existing duties but exempted goods already subject to Section 232 tariffs. Antidumping and countervailing duties (19 U.S.C. § 1671 and following sections) are a separate layer. Do not add percentages from news reports. Check the HTS classification, origin, entry date and each instrument. Customs administers collection.

Who Pays Tariffs, and Who Can Get a Refund?

The importer of record pays the duty to Customs. The foreign manufacturer does not automatically pay. The economic cost can be shared along the supply chain, and consumers may see higher prices, but that does not give a shopper a direct customs refund.

• IEEPA duties: Importers have pursued refunds after the ruling. The Court did not set the process, so liquidation status, protests and court orders matter.
• Consumers: Separate putative class actions allege companies passed on tariff costs or kept refunds. They are distinct claims decided under contract, restitution and consumer-protection laws. For background, see IEEPA Tariff Consumer Class Actions, Were You Overcharged? Litigation Update and GoPro Tariff Refund Class Action, Buyers Say They Paid Higher Prices, but Cannot Claim the $20.2 Million Refund.

What Customs Laws Control Refund Rights?

• Protests, 19 U.S.C. § 1514: Generally 180 days after liquidation.
• Liquidation, 19 U.S.C. § 1504: Entries generally liquidate within about a year of entry.
• Interest, 19 U.S.C. § 1505: Refunds of excess duties generally carry interest.
• CIT jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i): Commonly used for challenges to tariff actions, with a two-year limit under 28 U.S.C. § 2636(i).

The right route depends on the entry and the legal theory. Get customs-law advice.

What Happens Next in the Section 338 Canada Tariff Lawsuit?

• Preliminary injunction: Possible if Gellert meets the legal test. It would not decide every claim.
• Merits ruling: The court could read Section 338 narrowly, reject specific uses, or rule for the government. Either side can appeal. A ruling against one proclamation would not necessarily invalidate every use of Section 338.
• Refunds: Possible only if the court finds duties were unlawfully collected and refund relief is available. None has been ordered.
• If Section 338 loses: The government would need another valid authority and would have to meet its conditions. Section 301 and 232 require investigations. Section 122 has its own limits. IEEPA cannot be used for tariffs.

Key Dates

Date	Event
February 20, 2026	Supreme Court decides Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (6-3)
February 24, 2026	IEEPA collection ends; Section 122 surcharge takes effect
July 20, 2026	Section 338 proclamations issued for Canadian goods
August 22, 2026	Section 338 duties take effect
September 8, 2026	Product lists expanded (Proclamations 11064 and 11065)
September 15, 2026	Collection begins on newly listed products, per the complaint
October 8, 2026	Thirty days after September 8
October 20, 2026	Gellert files its Section 338 challenge
October 21, 2026	Research cutoff; no injunction or merits ruling verified

Frequently Asked Questions About Section 338, Section 301, Section 232 and IEEPA

What is the difference between Section 338 and Section 301?

Section 338 lets the president impose up to 50% duties in response to specified foreign discrimination. Section 301 is a USTR-run process to address unfair foreign trade practices.

What is the difference between Section 232 and IEEPA?

Section 232 requires a Commerce national-security investigation. IEEPA is an emergency-powers law that the Supreme Court held does not authorize tariffs.

Did the Supreme Court strike down every Trump tariff in 2026?

No. It held that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs. Sections 232, 301, 122 and 338 are evaluated on their own terms.

Is Section 338 still valid law?

It remains in the U.S. Code. The dispute is whether the Canadian tariffs comply with it and how it interacts with Section 301.

Can the president impose a 50% tariff under Section 338?

Up to 50% ad valorem when the statutory requirements are met. It does not allow an automatic 50% tariff on any country’s goods.

Is the Gellert lawsuit a class action?

It is a putative class action. No class has been certified.

Can consumers get refunds from the Section 338 lawsuit?

No. The proposed class covers importers of record that paid the duties.

Did the Supreme Court order refunds of IEEPA tariffs?

No. The Court did not address the refund process. Importers should follow customs procedures and court orders.

Can the government use Section 301 after losing under IEEPA?

Yes, but it must meet Section 301’s requirements. It cannot use the IEEPA ruling as permission for tariffs under a different label.

Where can importers check classification and duties?

The Harmonized Tariff Schedule, CBP guidance, the proclamations and a customs broker or trade attorney.

Official Sources and Court Records

1. U.S. Supreme Court, February 20, 2026: Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, Nos. 24-1287 and 25-250. Opinion
2. U.S. Court of International Trade, October 20, 2026: Gellert Global Group Corp. v. Trump, No. 26-cv-04636, Complaint. Complaint
3. White House, July 20, 2026: Dairy proclamation
4. U.S. Trade Representative: Section 301 investigations
5. U.S. Department of Commerce: Section 232 fact sheet
6. USTR, July 23, 2026: Forced-labor Section 301 action
7. 19 U.S.C. § 2132 (Section 122): Statute
8. U.S. International Trade Commission: Section 201 safeguard investigations
9. 19 U.S.C. § 2411 (Section 301): Statute
10. 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701–1702 (IEEPA): Statute
11. 19 U.S.C. § 1338 (Section 338): Statute
12. 19 U.S.C. § 1514 (customs protests): Statute

Legal authorities referenced: 19 U.S.C. §§ 1338, 1504, 1505, 1514, 1671 et seq., 1862, 2132, 2251 et seq., 2411; 50 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq., 1701–1708; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1581(i), 2636(i); U.S. Const. art. I, § 8.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and is not legal, financial or customs advice. The Gellert complaint contains allegations not resolved by a final ruling. Tariff rates, exemptions, refund rights and deadlines depend on the product, legal authority and any later government or court action. AllAboutLawyer.com is a legal information website, not a law firm.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the Supreme Court opinion in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the complaint in Gellert Global Group Corp. v. Trump, USTR and White House announcements and the statutes cited, as of October 21, 2026. Last Updated: October 21, 2026.