Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (50 years old) under attack by SCOTUS in Haaland v. Brackeen

[diva77]

email blast 5-18-2023 from Native American Rights Fund (NARF)

For 50 years, the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) has protected Native American and Alaska Native children and families while supporting tribes' rights to determine what is best for their youngest citizens. Before Congress passed ICWA, more than one-in-four Indian children was being removed from their families and communities, often without any evidence of harm and without due process. Most of those children were placed with non-Native, non-relative families, even when living with relatives would have been a safe option. ICWA aimed to stop that horrendous practice. The law protects families from unnecessary and traumatic disruption and maintains connections between Indian children and their communities. Right now, these protections for Native children and families are under attack in the U.S. Supreme Court case Haaland v. Brackeen.

NARF is deeply involved in the legal fight to protect ICWA, and strengthen protections for Indian children, families, and tribes. This work recognizes that the future of tribes is inseparable from the health and wellness of their citizen children. We need partners to come together in these efforts.
SNIP

====================
There is a donate button at the top of this page:
https://narf.org/category/tribal-child-welfare/

[diva77]

1. Court documents here

https://sct.narf.org/caseindexes/brackeen_v_bernhardt_lower_courts.html

[Sympthsical]

2. Read through the oral arguments

It's an interesting case.

I very much got the impression the Court is inclined to leave it well enough alone for the most part, particularly in regards to the law as a whole and its constitutionality.

Where there might be some movement is around third preference. That's when the arguments and explanations started to get tangled, and the hypotheticals didn't have any satisfying answers.

But if I had to guess based on what I read, I'd say they mostly leave it alone.

[drmeow]

3. IMO, if you think it is appropriate

to sue to be allowed to adopt a child who is not related to you, you may not be a very good parent for that child! Instead of "we make more money so we are better parents" how about "we care deeply for the child, is there a way we can continue to have a relationship with the child while ensuring the best culturally appropriate childhood for them?" or "We love the child, what can we do to ensure that the child has a happy, healthy childhood."

[cbabe]

4. Texas, Big Oil Lawyers Target Native Children in a Bid to End Tribal Sovereignty

https://lakotalaw.org/news/2021-09-17/icwa-sovereignty

Texas, Big Oil Lawyers Target Native Children in a Bid to End Tribal Sovereignty

…

In this landmark case, the Brackeens — the white, adoptive parents of a Diné child in Texas — seek to overturn ICWA by claiming reverse racism. Joined by co-defendants including the states of Texas, Ohio, Louisiana, and Indiana, they’re being represented pro bono by Gibson Dunn, a high-powered law firm which also counts oil companies Energy Transfer and Enbridge, responsible for the Dakota Access and Line 3 pipelines, among its clients. This lawsuit is the latest attempt by pro-fossil fuel forces to eliminate federal oversight of racist state policies, continue the centuries-long genocide of America’s Native populations, and make outrageous sums of money for energy magnates, gaming speculators, and fossil fuel lawyers. The story below may seem unbelievable, but it is 100 percent true.

…more…

(It’s not about the children. That is a cynical wedge issue to break tribal sovereignty for a massive land/oil grab.)

[diva77]

5. Thank you for posting this -- helpful for better understanding what's really going on