Blackfeet Nation Fights Controversial Tariffs Tied to Treaty Rights

Documents labeled "Lawsuit" with glasses on top.

Two Blackfeet Nation citizens have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government challenging Trump-era tariffs on Canada, claiming the economic measures not only violate constitutional principles but also ignore centuries-old treaty rights that protect Native American cross-border commerce.

Quick Takes

State Senator Susan Webber and rancher Jonathan St. Goddard are suing over tariffs they claim violate both the Constitution and the Jay Treaty of 1794.
The lawsuit argues that presidential powers were overextended, as the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate commerce.
Plaintiffs contend the International Emergency Economic Powers Act was improperly used to justify tariff implementation.
The case highlights ongoing tensions between executive actions, tribal sovereignty, and historical treaty obligations.

Constitutional Challenge and Treaty Rights

Two members of the Blackfeet Nation have initiated legal action against the U.S. government, challenging tariffs imposed on Canada during the Trump administration. State Senator Susan Webber and rancher Jonathan St. Goddard filed the lawsuit, represented by attorney Monica Tranel, arguing that these economic measures violate both constitutional principles and tribal treaty rights. The legal challenge targets several Executive Orders and presidential proclamations related to tariffs on steel, aluminum, and emergency declarations concerning cross-border commerce.

At the heart of the lawsuit is the contention that these tariffs violate the Jay Treaty of 1794, which specifically grants Native Americans the right to cross the U.S.-Canada border freely without paying duties on goods. This treaty, signed shortly after the founding of the United States, has been a cornerstone of Native American cross-border commerce for centuries. The plaintiffs argue that Trump’s tariff policies ignore these long-established treaty obligations that were designed to respect the unique status of tribal nations whose traditional territories span the modern international boundary.

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

Executive Overreach Allegations

The legal challenge extends beyond treaty rights to question the constitutional basis for the tariffs. The lawsuit argues that the executive orders violate the U.S. Constitution, which explicitly grants Congress, not the president, the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. This separation of powers argument suggests that the Trump administration overstepped executive authority by implementing tariffs without proper congressional authorization, raising fundamental questions about the limits of presidential power in economic policy decisions.

The plaintiffs further contend that the administration improperly used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify the imposition of tariffs. According to their argument, this law was never intended to authorize broad tariff implementation. The lawsuit characterizes the tariffs as “unconstitutionally vague” and claims they violate due process rights guaranteed to all Americans, including tribal members, suggesting a pattern of executive actions that exceed statutory authority.

Impact on Tribal Communities

The economic impact of these tariffs has been particularly severe for the Blackfeet tribal community due to its geographic location along the U.S.-Canada border and existing economic challenges. The Blackfeet Reservation in northern Montana shares a border with Canada, and cross-border commerce has historically been vital to tribal economic sustainability. The lawsuit notes that tariffs have disrupted traditional trade patterns and created financial hardships for tribal members who rely on cross-border economic activities.

The lawsuit seeks specific relief: either prohibiting the implementation of tariffs on Canada altogether or, at minimum, exempting tribal members from these economic measures. While this case focuses specifically on the Blackfeet Nation’s treaty rights, it connects to broader tribal opposition to federal policies that fail to acknowledge tribal sovereignty and treaty obligations. The case represents an important test of how historical treaty commitments intersect with modern trade policies and executive authority.

Broader Legal Implications

Legal experts note that this case, while narrower than other pending challenges to Trump-era tariffs, raises significant questions about executive power that could have far-reaching implications. The invocation of the “major questions doctrine” suggests that courts should be skeptical when the executive branch claims authority over decisions of vast economic and political significance without clear congressional authorization. This doctrine has been increasingly influential in recent Supreme Court decisions limiting administrative authority.

As this case proceeds through the legal system, it will likely draw attention to the complex interplay between tribal rights, constitutional powers, and international trade policy. The outcome could influence not only future trade relationships with Canada but also set important precedents regarding the scope of executive authority in implementing economic measures that affect sovereign tribal nations and their historical treaty rights.