The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Blackfeet Nation Indians File Lawsuit Challenging Trump's Canada Tariffs
They argue the tariffs violate the constitutional separation of powers and their tribal treaty rights.

I missed this when the case was first filed. But two members of the Blackfeet Nation, a Native American tribe, have filed a lawsuit challenging Donald Trump's Canada tariffs on constitutional grounds, and also because they violate tribal treaty rights:
Two citizens of the Blackfeet Nation on April 4 filed a lawsuit against the federal government, alleging tariffs the Trump administration is imposing on Canada violate the U.S. Constitution and tribal treaty rights.
State Sen. Susan Webber, D-Browning, and Jonathan St. Goddard, a rancher on the Blackfeet Reservation, named the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Kristi Noem and the United States of America in the suit, which was filed in Montana federal district court. The plaintiffs are represented by Monica Tranel, who ran as a Democrat for Montana's western congressional seat in 2022 and 2024….
This lawsuit specifically pertains to several Executive Orders, including one Feb. 1 that expanded an emergency declaration to include "the flow of illicit drugs" across the U.S.-Canada border and one April 2 that announced global "reciprocal tariffs." The lawsuit also regards two Feb. 10 proclamations that impose tariffs on steel and aluminum products.
Plaintiffs allege the orders violate the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress, not the president, the power to regulate commerce. Trump declared several national emergencies (due to U.S. trade deficits and to the flow of illegal drugs over the Northern border) and invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to issue tariffs. But the two Blackfeet citizens say the president had no legal basis to do so, arguing the IEEPA statute does not include the power to tariff….
Complainants in the Montana case further allege the Canada tariffs violate the Jay Treaty, which was signed in 1794 by the U.S. and Great Britain to ease Revolutionary War tensions. While the treaty primarily focused on the two countries, it also recognized the rights of Native Americans to freely cross over the U.S.-Canada border. It also stipulated that American Indians were not to pay duties or taxes on their own goods when crossing the border.
The plaintiffs' complaint in Webber v. Department of Homeland Security is available here.
This lawsuit targets only various tariffs imposed on Canadian goods, and is therefore much narrower than the case the Liberty Justice Center and I are about to file challenging the entirety of Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs. But there are important overlaps between the arguments in the two cases, most notably with respect to executive usurpation of congressional authority, and the issue of whether the IEEPA authorizes the imposition of tariffs at all (we say not).
I think the Blackfeet plaintiffs would also do well to raise the issue of whether the major questions doctrine applies to the various tariffs against Canadian goods. I have previously argued that imposing massive new tariffs on one of our biggest trading partners does so qualify, even if it is not quite as obviously a "major" economic and political issue as the global trade war started by the "Liberation Day" tariffs.
I lack the expertise needed to assess the argument that the Trump tariffs violate Native American treaty rights. But it does strike me as highly plausible, at the very least.
I wish the Blackfeet plaintiffs every success with this case. It is not just Native American tribes, but all Americans who have an interest in preventing the executive from imposing massive unconstitutional tariffs on goods imported from our northern neighbor and major trading partner.
UPDATE: The original version of this post had an incorrect link to the complaint in the case. I apologize for the mistake, which has now been fixed.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
But it does strike me as highly plausible, at the very least."
Of course it does.
Imagine if you could by yourself or with one other person gain veto power over an entire class of major foreign policy decisions for the entire nation because one day you got Chief Firewhiskey drunk enough to declare you an Indian.
Highly Plausible!-Mr. Somin
So if Indians are supposed to be exempt from US foreign economic policy as a separate 'nation' how is that supposed to work? Do they get to show a badge at the local walmart or input a special code on Amazon that gives them x% off or charges them x% more depending on how the totality of US trade deals shake out?
Or can they just negotiate separate deals with foreign nations and just have goods airdropped and airlifted in and out of the reservation?
Under Mr. Somin's theory it seems any random one or two dudes who just happened to have accepted Indian ancestry would have veto power over the entire nation for any tariff they didn't like which strikes me as pretty far fetched for a so called law professor to believe.
Alternatively, the US signed a treaty with Native American tribes, and now they're being asked to abide by its terms. Doesn't sound particularly controversial in principle.
Even if you want to respect the supposedly in force treaty by his framing Mr. Somin's theory doesn't make sense.
Give two random indian dudes veto power over US economic policy is not a coherent answer to 'how do we not tax indians for over the border goods'.
With apologies to William F. Buckley, I would rather US economic policy be determined by two random Indian dudes than by Donald Trump.
I mean you can read the actual complaint. The requests for relief goes all the way down to, at a minimum, asking for an exemption to the a tariffs for blackfeet nation members. It's not an all or nothing proposition.
By the same token, the US could then impose a new tax that only the Blackfeet had to pay.
The relief asked for is essentially "This treaty we signed says we have an exemption, so please honor that exemption". I don't understand how by the same token the US could then impose a new tax that only they had to pay.
I mean nothing limits Congress from passing a new law or treaty I guess, but I don't think the president can do so unilaterally. I doubt such a tax would pass.
He's the 'not guilty' of the conspirators. Motivated reasoning to get to his predefined goal dressed up as "legal analysis".
Under Mr. Somin's theory it seems any random one or two dudes who just happened to have accepted Indian ancestry would have veto power over the entire nation for any tariff they didn't like which strikes me as pretty far fetched for a so called law professor to believe.
This sounds like a Trump problem, not a Native American problem.
The US signed a treaty with the tribe, it's obliged to abide by the terms of that treaty or negotiate a new one. If the US implements a policy that violates that treaty they need to fix it.
There are at least four votes for the Indians at SCOTUS.
It could result in legal smuggling! Import to Canada. The import to the Indians. Then trade with the US!
Making the 1790s great again.
The plaintiffs' complaint in Webber v. Department of Homeland Security is available here.
This is a link to a previous Volokh post. Don't see the complaint.
Two gentle reminders to the tribes:
1. We won the first time.
2. We break treaties.
Would you be pleased if we did break this treaty?
Yes.
This is perhaps the least surprising statement that has ever been posted.
LTBF,
Genocide as an argument. Brilliant! You’re muted, asshole.
Dan, you ignorant slut... (with apologies to Dan Akroyd)
No one cares about you or your magic mute button.
Your mute threats are about as consistent as Trump's tariffs.
P.S. Where did he advocate genocide? Not responsive.
“We won the first time.”
What was the conflict and how did it end?
Why don't you ask Dan, who seems to see something invisible?
There are no shortage of people who can tell you why it was offensive. Of course, you're not Native American, nor do you know any.
NG does not condone breaking treaties with the Indians.
lol, that's actually very true!
Treaties aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
Looks like judge shopping. The Customs Act of 1980 clearly seems to give the Court of International Trade "exclusive jurisdiction" in all matters concerning tariffs.
I meant the "Customs Court Act of 1980", which renamed the Customs Court the Court of International Trade and made some changes to its jurisdiction.
How do you figure? It certainly has exclusive jurisdiction over certain matters involving tariffs, 28 U.S.C. § 1851(a), (b), and (c), but I’m not sure how you get from that to “all”. Indeed, since the plaintiffs here aren’t pursuing such a challenge, I’m not sure how the Court of International Trade would have jurisdiction at all.
In Akins v. Saxbe, 380 F. Supp. 1210 (D. Me. 1974), a group of Indians on either side of the Canadian border raised virtually identical claims to those here, that they were exempt from duties under certain provisions of the Jay Treaty. That court did not address the merits, ruling that jurisdiction was in the Customs Court. (The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, would eventually rule against the Indians, holding those exemptions had been abrogated by the War of 1812. Akins v. United States, 407 F. Supp. 748 (CCPA 1976).
The instant case, challenging the legality of a tariff, could hardly be a more quintessential case for the Court of International Trade. It's the very reason for having such a court. You could hardly tolerate a situation in which a tariff is declared "unconstitutional" in some districts, but perfectly legal in others.
You are right and I was wrong, I didn’t realize the statute kept going past the bottom of my screen.
it seems particularly insipid in principle. There is some serious "magical thinking" between a tribe having a right to trade personal goods across the border and international commerce or even trade between states. If some native guy wants to load his suitcase full of Canadian aluminium or steel for his personal use, I am sure we can abide by the treaty and let him be.
Claiming that his personal use is an automobile manufacturing facility or skyscraper is the type of dishonesty best left to the experts like Sarcastro.
Did you read the complaint?
Actually, we will call his aluminum or steel a receiver, and put his sorry ass in jail for possessing an unlicensed firearm.
They obviously didn't, because otherwise they would have read that the Jay Treaty Native American clause has a limiting principle:
> But Goods in Bales, or other large Packages unusual among Indians shall not be considered as Goods belonging bona fide to Indians.
Obviously I don't know how that's interpreted in modern day exactly, but it would almost certainly apply to a large amount of goods. Where that line is, I'm not sure.
If President Trump stated that the sun rises in the east, Somin would file a post vehemently disagreeing. Probably file suit to stop him saying so. The TDS is strong with this one.
If President Trump stated that the sun rises in the east, it wouldn't.
If your point is that the sun has TDS, tell us something we don't know.
Ilya, you and I both know that a lawyer came to them and begged them to file that suit.
Love how your first reaction is to assume they aren't capable of making their own decisions.
Every string a rope when grasping.
I, too, would like to see the major-questions doctrine brought up against Trump's more extravagant executive orders. It seems like it'd provide an excellent occasion for the Supreme Court to clarify and perhaps expand the doctrine.
And, in my cynical heart, I suspect that this is exactly why the Blackfeet, and the Democratic politicians involved in this suit, haven't done so. The more enthusiastic members of both political parties want untrammeled executive power when they hold the Presidency, so will be loath to seek SCOTUS rulings that might limit the powers of their Presidents to rule by ukase.
Thus Democrats will try to restrict Donald Trump's power to unilaterally make major changes in American trade policy, while keeping President Buttigieg free to deploy his pen and phone to transfer billions in student debt to the taxpayer's shoulders. And Republicans, who howled for checks and balances when Biden was declaring eviction moratoria ex cathedra, now fervently believe that Donald Trump should be able to rule by lit de justice.
Somin is just embarrassing. Even if they had standing, Trump's on-again, off-again, tariffs would likely be off again at some convenient point for the government and the case would be mooted.
Standing doesn’t strike me as a problem. Anyone subject to the tarriffs would have standing to challenge them. And while the Jay Treaty arguments don’t let the challenge the applicability of the tarriffs to others, it does let them challenge the applicability of the tariffs to them.
Supremacy clause territory.
Treaties are also the Supreme Law of the Land. If the treaty claim is valid, then the Blackfeet Nation gets to rely on the fact thatCongress is not presumed to repudiate treaties sub silentio, it has to repudiate them explicitly. And this doesn’t seem to have occurred. So I think it has a reasonable chance of success on its claim that the Jay Treaty entitles its members to an exemption.
The Jay Treaty claims don’t strike me as any sort of fundamental attack on the tariffs themselves. The Blackfeet Nation is simply arguing that it and its members are entitled to an exemption. I agree that it may well be a valid argument.
The exemption claims have been made (and rejected) before.
Akins v. United States, 551 F.2d 1222, 1230 (CCPA 1977).
The instant case was brought in district court in Montana, though it should have been brought in the Court of International Trade, and I can virtually guarantee it will be thrown out for want of jurisdiction. (The cited Akins case was similarly initially brought in Maine district court, but was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.) The Federal Circuit has held that decisions of its predecessor court, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, are binding precedent within it.