Filed Date: April 4, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is one of several cases challenging President Trump’s implementation of tariffs.
This case raised urgent questions about the scope of presidential authority over trade and the constitutional rights of Indigenous communities living along the U.S.–Canada border. On April 4, 2025, two members of the Blackfeet Nation—Montana State Senator Susan Webber and rancher Jonathan St. Goddard—filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Montana against the United States, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, in her official capacity. Represented by private counsel, plaintiffs challenged a series of executive actions issued by President Donald Trump that imposed tariffs on goods entering from Canada. The plaintiffs argued that the tariffs unlawfully burdened commerce and travel essential to Blackfeet citizens and violated longstanding treaty protections and constitutional guarantees.
The challenged actions include multiple executive orders and proclamations—collectively referred to as the “Canada Orders.” These include: (1) Executive Order 14193 (Feb. 1, 2025), which declared a national emergency and imposed tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA); (2) Proclamations 10895 and 10896, which levied 25% tariffs on aluminum and steel under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act; and (3) Executive Order 14257 (Apr. 2, 2025), which introduced reciprocal tariffs to counter perceived trade imbalances. Plaintiffs claimed these measures, which apply universally without exemptions for Indigenous trade, violated constitutional principles and federal treaties.
The plaintiffs argued that the President lacked statutory authority to impose tariffs of this scale and scope. Specifically, they contended that IEEPA does not authorize universal tariffs unrelated to a clear foreign threat and that the Trade Expansion Act's delegation of power under Section 232 cannot justify these broad economic measures. They also alleged that the executive actions violated the separation of powers by encroaching on Congress’s exclusive authority over foreign commerce under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
In addition to constitutional structure, the plaintiffs raised claims under the Due Process Clause. They argued that the tariffs impose arbitrary and sweeping economic burdens without procedural safeguards or individualized assessment. The complaint also referenced historical protections under the Jay Treaty of 1794, the Treaty of Ghent (1814), and early federal tariff acts that explicitly exempted Indigenous trade from duties. The plaintiffs maintained that these protections remained valid, self-executing treaty rights that predated and overrode later conflicting executive actions.
To support their claims, plaintiffs filed declarations and affidavits documenting the concrete harms caused by the tariffs. These included rising business costs, lost tourism income, and disrupted family and trade relations across the northern border. In particular, Senator Webber emphasized the disproportionate impact on the Blackfeet Nation, whose homelands, commerce, and kinship networks span both sides of the U.S.–Canada border.
Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief. They asked the Court to declare key portions of the Canada Orders unconstitutional, enjoin their enforcement, and, alternatively, exempt tribally enrolled members or tribal border crossings from the tariffs. They also sought attorneys’ fees and any other relief deemed just and proper.
This case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Dana L. Christensen. On April 4, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary and permanent injunction. On April 11, they filed an amended complaint adding four additional plaintiffs: Ryan Biederman, Andrea Bocanegra, David Greer, and Lisa Ruelas. On April 14, the government moved to transfer the case to the U.S. Court of International Trade and requested a stay of proceedings pending that decision. Plaintiffs opposed both motions, arguing that their constitutional and treaty-based claims require resolution in a federal district court with jurisdiction over constitutional and equitable claims.
On April 21, 2025, the Montana Farmers Union (MFU) moved the court to intervene as a party-plaintiff.
On April 25, 2025, the court granted the defendants' motion to transfer the case to the U.S. Court of International Trade and denied their motion to stay as moot. 2025 WL 1207587. Plaintiffs immediately appealed the transfer order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and filed a motion in the district court for a preliminary injunction pending appeal. On April 28, plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the transfer order. That same day, the district court denied their request for a preliminary injunction pending appeal. 2025 WL 1222175.
In the Court of Appeals, plaintiff-appellants filed a motion for injunctive relief on May 1, 2025. Defendant-appellees filed a motion to dismiss that same day. On May 23, the court denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice and ordered that all appellate proceedings, except for mediation, be stayed pending the district court's ruling on the timely tolling motion filed on April 28, 2025.
On June 2, the district court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. 2025 WL 1555218. Following this, plaintiffs filed a motion to expedite in the Court of Appeals, arguing that the stay previously entered was moot in light of the district court's ruling. They requested that the Court of Appeals set an expedited briefing schedule on the merits of their appeal and grant their fully briefed motion for a preliminary injunction. The motion for an expedited briefing schedule was granted on June 18.
While briefing was occurring, defendants also filed a Motion to Hold Proceedings in Abeyance on September 4. They asked the Court of Appeals to hold the case in abeyance pending a decision from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) regarding the government’s petitions for a writ of certiorari in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc., and Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump. Defendants claimed that these cases were on an expedited briefing schedule in SCOTUS, with oral arguments set for the first week of November and the merits of plaintiffs’ claims in this case “substantially” overlapped with those before SCOTUS in V.O.S. Selections. Thus, holding proceedings in the case at hand before a SCOTUS decision, defendants argued, would be inefficient.
On September 5, the Court of Appeals denied defendants’ Motion to Hold Proceedings in Abeyance with the caveat that defendants could renew this motion should SCOTUS grant a petition for a writ of certiorari in either V.O.S. Selections or Learning Resources. On September 10, after SCOTUS consolidated V.O.S Selections and Learning Resources, defendants renewed their motion to hold proceedings in abeyance. In a Text Clerk Order, the Court of Appeals again denied this motion on September 12.
Due to the government shutdown, Defendants filed a Motion to Stay the Proceeding on October 1. On October 2, the court denied this as “unnecessary pursuant to [a] Supplemental Administrative Order issued on the Court’s website."
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Karma Karira (4/21/2025)
Emma Vayda (6/13/2025)
Madeline Kaplan (9/17/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69845990/parties/webber-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/
Christensen, Dana Lewis (Montana)
Johnston, John T. (Montana)
Attorney, Daniel L.
Attorney, Mr. Luke
Hinshelwood, Mr. Bradley
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69845990/webber-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/
Last updated Nov. 8, 2025, 5:02 p.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: April 4, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The plaintiffs are four enrolled members of the Blackfeet Nation—Susan Webber, Jonathan St. Goddard, Rhonda Mountain Chief, and David Mountain Chief—who reside and operate businesses in Montana near the U.S.–Canada border.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Department of Homeland Security (- United States (national) -), Federal
United States of America (- United States (national) -), Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
District of Montana 4:25-cv-00026
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 25-02717
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Affected National Origin/Ethnicity(s):
Immigration/Border: