Blackfeet Nation Fights Against Tariffs and Treaty Violations in Court Battle

Legal document titled Lawsuit with pen and book.

Blackfeet Nation members have filed a groundbreaking lawsuit challenging Trump-era tariffs on Canadian imports, claiming they violate both constitutional principles and sacred treaty rights dating back to 1794.

Key Insights

Two Blackfeet Nation citizens filed a federal lawsuit arguing Trump’s Canadian tariffs violate both the U.S. Constitution and tribal treaty rights.
The lawsuit centers on the Jay Treaty of 1794, which permits Native Americans to move freely across borders without paying duties.
Plaintiffs argue tariff implementation is Congress’s constitutional power, not the executive branch’s.
The case highlights tensions between executive authority, treaty obligations, and tribal sovereignty.

Constitutional Challenge to Executive Authority

Montana State Senator Susan Webber and rancher Jonathan St. Goddard, both Blackfeet Nation citizens, have taken legal action against the federal government over tariffs imposed on Canadian imports by the Trump administration. The lawsuit, filed in federal court and represented by attorney Monica Tranel, directly challenges several Executive Orders related to tariffs and national emergency declarations. At the heart of their argument is the claim that these orders fundamentally violate the U.S. Constitution, which explicitly grants Congress, not the president, the power to regulate commerce and international trade.

The plaintiffs contend that the Trump administration overstepped its constitutional authority by imposing these tariffs through executive action rather than congressional legislation. They specifically target proclamations related to steel and aluminum tariffs, as well as emergency declarations concerning the flow of illicit drugs that were used to justify trade restrictions. The lawsuit also argues that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which the administration cited as legal justification, does not authorize the broad imposition of tariffs in the manner executed.

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

Treaty Rights and Tribal Impact

Beyond constitutional concerns, the lawsuit emphasizes violations of the Jay Treaty of 1794, which guarantees Native Americans the right to cross the U.S.-Canadian border freely and conduct trade without paying duties or tariffs. This treaty right holds particular significance for the Blackfeet Nation, whose ancestral territory spans both sides of the current international border. The plaintiffs argue that Trump’s tariffs directly infringe upon these long-established rights that predate the formation of both countries’ current borders.

The Blackfeet tribal community faces particular hardship from these tariffs due to their geographic location along the Canadian border and the already challenging economic conditions on the reservation. Many tribal members depend on cross-border commerce for their livelihoods, and the tariffs have imposed significant financial burdens. The lawsuit seeks either to prohibit the implementation of tariffs on Canada altogether or, at minimum, to exempt tribal members from these tariffs in recognition of their treaty rights.

Broader Legal Implications

The case represents part of a broader legal challenge to executive authority in trade matters. While narrower in scope than another upcoming lawsuit challenging Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs, this case shares fundamental arguments about executive overreach and the limitations of emergency powers. The plaintiffs specifically argue that the tariffs are “unconstitutionally vague” and violate due process rights, raising questions about the clarity and fairness of their implementation.

The lawsuit reflects growing tribal opposition to policies perceived as infringing upon tribal sovereignty and treaty rights. The court’s decision could have far-reaching implications for executive authority in trade matters, the sanctity of treaty obligations, and the economic well-being of tribal communities engaged in cross-border commerce.