Plaintiffs' Lawyer Bullish on Jurisdiction, Injunctive Relief in Montana Suit on Trump Tariffs
Counsel for two members of the Blackfeet Nation tribe that recently filed a lawsuit against the recent tariff action taken by President Donald Trump told us that she believes jurisdiction to be proper in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana. Monica Tranel, the attorney for Montana state Sen. Susan Webber and rancher Jonathan St. Goddard, also said that she believes she can obtain a preliminary injunction against the spate of tariffs recently imposed on Canada due to the size of the harm to the agriculture and tourism industry in western Montana.
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.
Tranel filed suit in Montana earlier this month, arguing that Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act is an "unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority" (see 2504100039). The suit contests the IEEPA tariffs on Canada related to the flow of fentanyl and amended by the IEEPA reciprocal tariffs, along with the expansion of the existing Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs.
The case was recently assigned to Judge Dana Christensen, an Obama-era appointee, who set a hearing for May 1 on the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary and permanent injunction.
In the complaint, and accompanying motion for a preliminary and permanent injunction, Tranel argued that St. Goddard was harmed by the tariffs when he purchased a wheel for his tractor in Canada and was hit with a large tariff bill. The attorney said that while St. Goddard was harmed by directly paying the tariff, Webber's status as a plaintiff flows from her ability to represent the enrolled members of Blackfeet Nation and the Native American community more broadly.
Tranel said Webber represents the harm that has been done "to her community," which includes a "broader sector of Native Americans," who have been hit with tariffs when bringing their own horses across the border to take part in Indian relay races. Webber is "speaking in that capacity for all those individuals who may not be named as plaintiffs," Tranel said, adding that the state senator can "speak to the harm that they are experiencing" as a "member of their community."
Tranel, who ran for Congress in 2022 and 2024, said she met Webber while campaigning in the western part of the state. After the tariffs were imposed, Tranel said she spoke with attorneys that she knew, including Danna Jackson, tribal attorney for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, about the possibility of bringing a suit against the duties. She then connected with Webber, who had recently spoken out against the tariffs on the floor of the Montana Senate.
The attorney said there's "something that's really structurally wrong" with the way Trump has imposed the tariffs, leading her to file the lawsuit. Tranel said that she believes jurisdiction to be proper in Montana given that the complaint is challenging the "constitutionality of the executive order" and involves telling border agents to implement the orders.
She emphasized that her complaint has a tribal component and is seeking as an alternative argument a claim against the imposition of tariffs on tribal members under the Jay's Treaty, properly placing the case before a district court. Tranel suggested the Court of International Trade reviews the "mechanics" of how tariffs are imposed, while a district court is better suited to try a "constitutional question of separation of powers."
Asked whether she would refile her case at CIT should the Montana court dismiss the suit, Tranel said she would appeal the dismissal. She said the court clearly has "jurisdiction over tribal members and commerce," adding that the harm is "happening very much right here in the jurisdiction of this court."
On the prospect of success for the injunction, Tranel said there's a theory of economic harm that can rise to the level of "irreparable harm in some instances," saying she believes the harm caused by the tariffs to the Montana agriculture industry rises to that level. In addition, the harm to "relationships and to investments" caused by not only the tariffs, but by the "absolute unpredictability and volatility that has been introduced into the market," aids the claim for an injunction.
Regarding whether the public interest is served by an injunction, an element she will be required to show, Tranel was undeterred by the government's potential defense centered on its declaration of a "national emergency." She questioned how necessary the duties could truly be, seeing as the president paused them for 90 days on a whim.
Tranel emphasized that the unilateral tariff-setting by the president violates the bounds of the Constitution. "That is no way to do trade policy," she said. "That is not how we do it in America. It's not how the Constitution works, and the public interest is served by following the Constitution, not by following the order of a dictator."