Following the breakdown of trade negotiations, the U.S. administration under President Donald Trump imposed a 50 percent tariff on approximately 20 billion dollars—about 27.8 trillion won—worth of Canadian imports starting at midnight on the 22nd.

The targeted items include certain dairy products, alcoholic beverages such as beer and wine, hockey equipment, machinery, textiles, cement, and furniture.

In response to Canada signaling retaliatory tariffs, President Trump threatened additional duties.

He declared that tariffs on automobiles, light and heavy trucks, auto parts, and steel will be raised to 50 percent starting January 1 of next year.

The New York Times (NYT) reported on the 25th, local time, that this latest round of tariffs invokes Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, putting the White House at risk of getting entangled in yet another legal battle.

President Trump asserted that Canada, one of the closest allies of the United States, has treated American industries unfairly.

However, because there is no precedent for the U.S. imposing tariffs based on Section 338, the NYT pointed out that this move is rapidly reigniting controversy over the long-dormant provision.

President Trump's trade policies have faced judicial scrutiny on multiple occasions in the past.

He has repeatedly dusted off decades-old trade-related authorities to levy aggressive tariffs worldwide, only to see federal courts repeatedly strike them down as violations of the law.

Over the years, the U.S. Congress has also enacted additional legislation that more explicitly defines the president's authority to impose tariffs without explicit congressional approval.

Some trade law experts believe this legislative history itself implies that Section 338 has effectively lost its validity.

Their argument is that if Congress continued to pass laws further clarifying executive authority afterward, the older Section 338 was essentially superseded.

Consequently, the NYT projected that the Trump administration may find itself once again forced to defend the president's sweeping exercise of authority in federal court.

Patrick Childress, a partner at the law firm Holland & Knight, said, "This law is nearly 100 years old. It has never been tested in court, nor has it been used to impose tariffs since its enactment."

He added, "It is hard to gauge how vulnerable any litigation over Section 338 would be because there is zero judicial interpretation record for this statute. It is very difficult to predict how tariffs under Section 338 will play out in court."

According to Section 338, even after tariffs are imposed, if the president determines as a fact that the discrimination in question continues or is expanded, they can completely ban the import of those goods into the U.S.

Ted Murphy, co-head of the trade practice at the law firm Sidley Austin, noted that unlike President Trump's earlier tariff actions, Section 338 explicitly permits the imposition of tariffs, but warned that applying Section 338 remains "somewhat risky."

Peter Harrell, a visiting scholar at Georgetown Law, pointed out that records indicate past U.S. administrations had considered applying Section 338 but ultimately abandoned the idea.

He projected that if the matter goes to court, judges may have to rule more directly on a series of practical issues.

He added, "For this law to apply, there must be discrimination against the United States compared to third countries, but there are questions about what exactly that means."

(Photo: AP, Yonhap News)