Webber v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 785 F.Supp.3d 824

Background

Plaintiffs, enrolled members of the Blackfeet Tribe, challenged the legality of presidential executive orders and proclamations imposing new tariffs and duties on Canadian goods, particularly as they affect cross-border tribal commerce under the Jay Treaty of 1794.
The challenged orders and proclamations were issued under authority of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, in response to concerns over drug trafficking and trade deficits.
Plaintiffs claimed these actions exceeded presidential authority, violated constitutional and treaty rights, and were procedurally defective.
Defendants (U.S. Government) moved to transfer the case to the U.S. Court of International Trade, arguing it has exclusive jurisdiction over such matters under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i).
The District Court evaluated whether it retained jurisdiction or was required to transfer the case, including the question of whether tribal treaty claims could be heard by the Trade Court.
The District Court ultimately determined that exclusive jurisdiction lay with the U.S. Court of International Trade and ordered the case transferred.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction: Whether the District Court or CIT has exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to tariffs and duties imposed by executive order under IEEPA and Section 232	The District Court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear claims, especially those based on constitutional and tribal treaty rights	CIT has exclusive jurisdiction over actions arising out of laws providing for tariffs, duties, or import restrictions not primarily for revenue	Only the Court of International Trade has jurisdiction; District Court is divested
Applicability of Section 232/IEEPA as basis for CIT jurisdiction	Presidential actions under IEEPA and Section 232 do not clearly fall under CIT’s scope, especially since IEEPA is more limited and doesn’t mention tariffs	Jurisdiction extends to all challenges arising from laws relating to tariffs/duties, even if IEEPA doesn't specifically reference tariffs	CIT’s jurisdiction includes these actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)
Treaty Rights: Whether Jay Treaty claims may be heard outside CIT	Jay Treaty and related constitutional claims should stay in District Court due to their unique nature	Similar claims have historically been heard by CIT (and predecessor courts)	Jay Treaty claims also fall under CIT’s jurisdiction
Public Interest: Geographic and practical considerations	Case should remain in Montana to serve tribal interests and access	CIT is a national court and can hold hearings anywhere; jurisdiction is not discretionary	Public interest is subordinate to exclusive jurisdiction requirements

Key Cases Cited

K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 485 U.S. 176 (1988) (explaining exclusive CIT jurisdiction divests district court)
Transpacific Steel LLC v. United States, 4 F.4th 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (CIT has jurisdiction over Section 232 tariff challenges)
Orleans Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 334 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Section 1581(i) removes actions from general federal-question jurisdiction)
United States v. Universal Fruits & Vegetables Corp., 370 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts must uphold CIT's exclusive jurisdiction)
Regan v. Wald, 468 U.S. 222 (1984) (discussing relationship between IEEPA and TWEA)
USP Holdings, Inc. v. United States, 36 F.4th 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (CIT jurisdiction over Section 232-related plans of action)
Conoco, Inc. v. U.S. Foreign-Trade Zones Bd., 18 F.3d 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (uniformity in handling tariff matters in CIT)