US Opposes Indigenous Tribe Members' Intervention Bid in SCOTUS Case on IEEPA Tariffs
The U.S. opposed the intervention of members of the Blackfeet Nation indigenous tribe in the lead case on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act before the Supreme Court, arguing that the members don't identify anything "rare, unusual, or extraordinary that would warrant intervention here" (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, U.S. 24-1287).
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 high court recently agreed to hear two cases on the legality of tariffs issued under IEEPA, consolidating the actions and electing to decide the issues on an expedited basis (see 2509090058). The cases were initially brought by various importers and U.S. states and concern whether IEEPA allows for tariffs and whether President Donald Trump's reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico meant to combat the flow of fentanyl go beyond the president's authority found in IEEPA.
The Blackfeet Nation members filed their lawsuit around the same time as the other plaintiffs, though they initially filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana. Their case was transferred to the Court of International Trade, though the plaintiffs appealed that decision. Argument is currently set for Sept. 17 in their appeal (see 2507090022).
The Blackfeet Nation members' case similarly challenges the president's authority to impose tariffs under IEEPA, though it also makes claims against various Section 232 tariffs and additionally says the tariffs violate the Indian Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Jay Treaty of 1794. The plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to intervene in the lead IEEPA tariff case, arguing that their claims overlap and also raise questions about "fundamental constitutional principles and a unique body of federal Indian law" (see 2509100058).
In response, the U.S. said the Blackfeet Nation members haven't established a significant "legal 'interest'" in the litigation that the existing parties won't adequately represent. Their claims regarding how the tariffs impact indigenous tribes "may be vindicated in their own suit challenging the tariffs" and don't give the tribal members "a cognizable protectable interest in this case that would warrant intervention," the government said.
While the court's resolution of the lead case will undoubtedly affect the Blackfeet Nation members' case, the possibility of precedential effects "has never been thought to justify intervention," the U.S. noted. In addition, the tribal members are "free to pursue" their claims not being made by the current parties "on an as-applied basis in their own suit (or in an amicus brief in this case)," the U.S. said.
The government added that if the tribal members are concerned their claims haven't yet been addressed by the lower courts, "that is a problem entirely of their own making," since they didn't file their suit in the Court of International Trade, which has exclusive jurisdiction over the case.