Blackfeet Nation Battles Tariff Dispute and Legal Authority with Canada

Person holding lawsuit document at desk with laptop

Blackfeet Nation members have filed a groundbreaking lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s Canada tariffs, claiming they violate both constitutional powers and a 230-year-old treaty protecting Native American border rights.

Key Takeaways

Two Blackfeet citizens sued the federal government over Canadian tariffs, claiming violations of the Constitution and tribal treaty rights.
The lawsuit argues the Jay Treaty of 1794 guarantees Native Americans duty-free border crossing rights that override modern tariffs.
Plaintiffs contend tariff authority belongs to Congress, not the executive branch, challenging Trump’s use of emergency powers.
The case highlights significant questions about separation of powers in U.S. trade policy.
Montana State Senator Susan Webber claims the tariffs directly harm Blackfeet economic opportunities.

Constitutional Challenge to Executive Authority

Montana State Senator Susan Webber and rancher Jonathan St. Goddard, both Blackfeet Nation citizens, have launched a constitutional challenge against the Trump administration’s Canada tariffs. The lawsuit, filed in federal court, directly questions whether the executive branch overstepped its authority by implementing these trade measures. The plaintiffs are represented by attorney Monica Tranel, who argues that the Constitution explicitly grants Congress, not the president, the power to regulate commerce and impose duties on foreign goods.

The legal challenge specifically targets several Executive Orders related to tariffs on Canadian imports and national emergency declarations that served as their justification. At its core, the lawsuit challenges the president’s invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as legal grounds for imposing these tariffs, arguing that the law was never intended to grant such broad trade authority to the executive branch.

Blackfeet tribal members are suing the federal government, saying that Trump's tariffs on Canada violate the Constitution and tribal treaty rights. It's the latest example of tribes flexing their sovereign status to oppose new federal policy. https://t.co/TqFb131gLP

— UAINE (@mahtowin1) April 8, 2025

Jay Treaty Rights and Tribal Sovereignty

A central argument in the lawsuit involves the Jay Treaty of 1794, a historic agreement between the United States and Great Britain that guarantees Native Americans the right to freely cross what is now the U.S.-Canada border without paying duties on goods. The plaintiffs contend that this treaty right supersedes modern tariff proclamations and should protect tribal members from duties imposed on cross-border trade. The Blackfeet Nation’s traditional territory spans the current international boundary, making cross-border movement and commerce particularly significant to tribal members.

The lawsuit seeks either a broad prohibition on implementing tariffs against Canada or, at minimum, an exemption for tribal members based on these treaty rights. The plaintiffs also claim the tariffs are “unconstitutionally vague” and violate due process, further challenging their legal standing. This case emerges as particularly significant for the Blackfeet community, whose reservation borders Canada and faces challenging economic conditions exacerbated by these trade policies.

Broader Implications for Presidential Power

The Blackfeet lawsuit is narrower than another upcoming case challenging Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs, but they share fundamental arguments about executive overreach in trade policy. Legal experts suggest the case could potentially invoke the “major questions doctrine,” which holds that agencies cannot regulate matters of vast economic or political significance without clear congressional authorization. The outcome could establish important precedent regarding the limits of presidential authority in imposing tariffs.

Both the steel and aluminum tariffs and declarations regarding illicit drug flow are being targeted in this legal action. The plaintiffs specifically challenge the executive branch’s right to declare these situations as national emergencies warranting exceptional economic measures. The case highlights longstanding tensions in American governance regarding the separation of powers, particularly in areas where constitutional authority may be ambiguous or contested between branches.

If successful, the lawsuit could potentially restrict not only the current administration’s tariff policies but also set precedent limiting executive authority in trade matters for future presidents. The case underscores the complex intersection of tribal sovereignty, constitutional powers, and international trade policy that continues to evolve in American jurisprudence, with significant implications for all Americans engaged in cross-border commerce.