Peter Harrell finds key arguments against the Section 338 tariffs persuasive
Peter HarrellLawyer and international economic-policy specialist
Harrell finds persuasive the arguments that Canada's acts are not discrimination under the statute and that the tariffs do not offset it, and says they would at least significantly narrow the tariffs.
“I have written about Section 338 elsewhere and I find these arguments persuasive: Canada's acts that are the purported basis for the Section 338 tariffs are not "discrimination" within the meaning of the statute, and the tariffs do not "offset" the burden of the discrimination. At the very least, these arguments would mean a significant narrowing of the tariffs.”
Original post
Where this statement fits
Trump's Section 338 Canada tariffs face Gellert Global Group's legal challenge
Gellert Global Group challenges Trump's 50% tariffs on covered Canadian goods under Section 338. Trump's proclamations describe the duties as a response to Canadian discrimination. The importer contests the statutory authority, the discrimination findings and the procedures used.
Source and context
Original post
About this source
Peter Harrell's post comments on imposing the Section 338 Canada tariffs. Harrell analyzes Gellert's complaint and distinguishes several legal arguments.
Before the quotation
Before turning to whether Trump misapplied the statute, Harrell notes that Congress never explicitly repealed Section 338.
After the quotation
Later, Harrell says it is hard to give odds on the litigation because Section 338 has not previously been used to impose tariffs.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
Relative to imposing the Section 338 tariffs, Harrell finds the arguments against their statutory basis persuasive. His uncertainty about the litigation does not express support for the tariffs.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseThomas Gellert says the Section 338 tariffs disrupt Gellert Global Group's business relationships
“These tariffs disrupt those relationships overnight and create costs and uncertainty that ripple through the entire supply chain”Read statement
Jeffrey Schwab says Section 338 cannot bypass modern trade-law safeguards
“The administration cannot skip those protections by reaching for a 1930 statute that no president had ever used to impose a tariff”Read statement
Sara Albrecht challenges presidential use of Section 338 for sweeping tariffs
“No president should have the power to pull a dormant statute off the shelf and use it to impose sweeping tariffs or import bans without the limits Congress required”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Peter Harrell finds key arguments against the Section 338 tariffs persuasive
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/6366-harrell-finds-persuasive-the-arguments-that-canada-s
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Peter Harrell finds key arguments against the Section 338 tariffs persuasive". First published: 2026-10-21. Last updated: 2026-10-21. https://disputeindex.com/events/6366-harrell-finds-persuasive-the-arguments-that-canada-s