Members of Montana Indigenous Tribe File Suit Against IEEPA Tariffs, Section 232 Expansion
Two members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana against various tariff actions by President Donald Trump, arguing that Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act is an "unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority." The individuals, Montana state Sen. Susan Webber and rancher Jonathan St. Goddard, also claimed that Trump's tariff orders unconstitutionally deprived them of procedural due process and are "void for vagueness."
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The lawsuit is the second of its kind to be filed against Trump's tariff actions after an importer filed suit against the use of IEEPA to impose tariffs in a federal court in Florida last week (see 2504040036).
Webber and St. Goddard filed a complaint against Trump's use of IEEPA to impose tariffs on Canada in response to the flow of fentanyl from Canada, use of IEEPA to impose reciprocal tariffs and expansion of the existing Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs. The case was brought by Montana attorney Monica Tranel, who unsuccessfully ran for Congress in 2022 and 2024 (Susan Webber and Jonathan St. Goddard v. Department of Homeland Security, D. Mont. # 4:25-cv-00026-JTJ).
Concurrent with the complaint, Tranel filed a motion for a preliminary and permanent injunction, arguing Webber and St. Goddard are likely to prevail on the merits and the tariffs will cause "irreparable harm" by "destroying jobs, ruining businesses" and harming "Montana's farmers and ranchers."
In the complaint, Tranel noted that St. Goddard was harmed by the tariffs when a wheel broke on his tractor and the only place he could find an immediate replacement was in Canada. Upon returning to the border with the newly purchased wheel, he was assessed a $308 tariff on the wheel, which cost $1,252.89, the complaint said.
Tranel argued that the IEEPA tariffs on Canada "have a direct, immediate, and irreparable negative impact on Tribal nations." Various projects "that are not getting killed off outright are being delayed and slow walked" due to the "tremendous uncertainty caused by the on-again off-again tariffs," the brief said.
The complaint's primary argument is that IEEPA historically doesn't give the president the power to impose tariffs. The statute's "plain language" doesn't include the power to "tariff" or to "tax," which is a glaring omission "given how clearly Congress referenced tariff authorities in other trade statutes," the brief said. Tanel noted that IEEPA has never been used to impose tariffs in its history.
The complaint also highlighted that the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 generally bars the president from using his IEEPA authority to "unilaterally restrict commercial sales of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, and medical devices." The individuals argued that Trump failed to acknowledge this restriction.
Regarding Trump's use of IEEPA to address the flow of fentanyl from Canada, Webber and St. Goddard argued that the "scale and scope of the tariffs is arbitrary, does not identify how it relates to or abates the declared emergency, and has been erratically deployed." The tariffs have been characterized as "bargaining chips, bringing jobs to the U.S., and a way to raise revenue to offset tax cuts," but rarely referred to, "if at all," in terms of the "stated emergency," the brief said.
On Trump's use of Section 232, the complaint argued that the president ignored the "required Section 232 process." Trump's Executive Orders merely said the commerce secretary "informed" the president "without setting out the process required by" the statute, which includes final reports published in the Federal Register regarding the "investigation that Section 232 requires prior to implementing tariffs."
As an alternative argument, the complaint invoked Jay's Treaty, which was signed in 1794 and "excludes Indigenous people from paying duty on goods carried across the [Canadian] border." The complaint said identical language found in this treaty has been "continuously reenacted by Congress in tariff acts" for "nearly 100 years." Trump acted beyond his authority in acting contrary to this treaty, the brief said.
Webber and St. Goddard also laid out a pair of due process claims, the first of which says they were stripped of procedural due process. They both have an "ongoing business and community interest in continued cross border trade without universal tariffs unilaterally imposed in violation of the constitutional framework that limits such action to Congress," the brief said. The individuals said they didn't receive notice before being subject to the tariffs, illustrated by St. Goddard being hit with the tariff upon reentry to the U.S. with his purchased tractor wheel.
The complaint added that the tariffs on Canada related to the flow of fentanyl are "unconstitutionally vague," since they don't provide the individuals "with any basis to understand when the tariffs will be imposed, how they might be lifted, or what the basis for future tariffs may be."