Yakama Tribe Member Says Tribe Exempt From US Tariffs by Treaty
Mandi Rae Lumley, a member of the Yakama Native American tribe, filed suit against the imposition of tariffs against her, claiming any duties assessed against her violate the 1855 Yakama Treaty. Lumley, filing suit along with her company Tikkun Olam Holdings, said the Yakama Treaty lets members of the Yakama tribe "use any public highway to carry on free trade with any trading partner" (Mandi Rae Lumley v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, D.Or. # 3:25-02003).
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 suit was filed on Oct. 29 by attorneys at Rugged Law, a criminal justice firm in Portland, Oregon, at the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.
The theory of Lumley's suit rests with the 1855 Yakama Treaty, which was made between the U.S. and the Yakama tribe for the purchase by the U.S. government of Yakama land. In return, the U.S. paid the Yakama tribe $200,000, made improvements to the remaining Yakama land and "agreed to respect the Yakamas' reservation of certain rights," the complaint said. One such right was the Yakama people's right to enjoy free trade on "any public highway."
Lumley argued that there has "been no Congressional effort to abrogate the 1855 Yakama Treaty," and that "public highway," at the time, meant "both roads on land, railroads, as well as waterways." For this claim, Lumley invoked Supreme Court precedent stating that "the treaties with Indian Tribes were to be interpreted and construed as the Indians would have understood them, with emphasis given to the Tribes' history, culture and traditions."
The right to conduct free trade "should apply to any future means of transportation for carrying on trade, including but not limited to travel by land or sea but also air travel and space travel," the complaint said. Part of the treaty negotiations included the use of "transportation corridors for the benefit of the tribe to carry on trade," and the "types of means of travel and the locations and types of trade carried on by the Yakama were broad and extensive at the time the treaty was executed," the brief said.
Thus, "the definition of the word highway in the 1855 Yakama Treaty should be construed broadly to include all potential forms of transportation and trade by any medium, including both roads on land as well as rivers, sea ports, airports, and spaceports," Lumley argued.
Lumley's argument echoes those made by four members of the Blackfeet Nation Native American tribe, who are currently arguing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that the U.S. can't impose tariffs on tribal members under the Indian Commerce Clause and the Jay Treaty (see 2510020039).