Can Blackfeet Nation Successfully Challenge Trump-Era Tariffs on Canadian Goods?

Lawsuit papers with glasses and pen on table.

Blackfeet Nation citizens have launched a legal battle against the U.S. government over Trump-era tariffs on Canadian imports, claiming these measures violate both their constitutional rights and historic treaty protections.

Key Takeaways

Two Blackfeet Nation citizens filed a lawsuit challenging tariffs imposed on Canadian imports by the Trump administration, arguing they violate constitutional provisions and tribal treaty rights.
The plaintiffs – State Senator Susan Webber and rancher Jonathan St. Goddard – contend that tariff authority belongs to Congress, not the executive branch.
The lawsuit specifically cites the Jay Treaty of 1794, which grants Native Americans the right to move freely across the U.S.-Canada border without paying duties.
Plaintiffs argue the International Emergency Economic Powers Act was improperly used to justify the tariffs.
The case highlights tensions between executive power, congressional authority, and treaty obligations to Native American tribes.

Constitutional Challenge to Executive Authority

The lawsuit, filed by Blackfeet Nation members State Senator Susan Webber and rancher Jonathan St. Goddard, directly challenges the constitutional basis for tariffs imposed on Canadian imports during the Trump administration. Represented by attorney Monica Tranel, the plaintiffs argue that the executive branch overstepped its authority by implementing these tariffs, as the U.S. Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and Indian tribes. Their legal action targets multiple Executive Orders and proclamations related to tariffs on steel, aluminum, and declarations concerning illicit drug flows across the border.

The plaintiffs contend that these tariffs represent an unconstitutional power grab by the executive branch, specifically challenging the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as legal justification. This case, while narrower than another upcoming lawsuit challenging Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs, raises fundamental questions about the separation of powers and executive overreach in trade policy. The Blackfeet plaintiffs seek either prohibition of the Canada tariffs entirely or specific exemptions for tribal members.

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 Historical Agreements

Central to the Blackfeet Nation’s legal challenge is the Jay Treaty of 1794, a historic agreement that guarantees Native Americans the right to cross the U.S.-Canada border freely without paying duties on goods. The plaintiffs argue that the Trump administration’s tariffs directly violate these long-established treaty rights that have been recognized and honored for over two centuries. This aspect of the case highlights the unique position of Native American tribes as both domestic entities and sovereign nations with treaty-based rights that transcend normal trade regulations.

The lawsuit emphasizes that the Blackfeet tribal community is particularly affected by these tariffs due to its geographic location along the U.S.-Canada border and existing economic challenges. The tribe’s members regularly engage in cross-border commerce and cultural exchange, activities protected by the Jay Treaty. By imposing duties on Canadian imports, the tariffs create economic hardships for tribal members who rely on these cross-border relationships for their livelihoods and cultural practices.

Broader Implications for Executive Power

This case extends beyond the immediate concerns of the Blackfeet Nation, raising significant questions about executive authority in trade policy. The plaintiffs argue that the tariffs are “unconstitutionally vague” and violate due process rights, creating uncertainty for businesses and individuals engaged in cross-border commerce. Their challenge to the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act as justification for tariffs could have far-reaching implications for how emergency powers are deployed in economic contexts.

Legal experts suggest the major questions doctrine might apply to these tariffs, further limiting executive branch authority to make decisions with significant economic and political consequences without explicit congressional authorization. The lawsuit comes amid growing scrutiny of executive power in trade policy and represents part of a broader tribal opposition to policies perceived as infringing on tribal sovereignty and treaty rights. A ruling favorable to the Blackfeet plaintiffs could establish important precedents limiting executive authority in future trade disputes.