![]() ![]() With a conservative court perhaps more poised to overturn ICWA, questions remain about how the scope of a potential ruling could impact Indian Country, too. But the nature of questions from the Supreme Court Justices during oral arguments in November 2022 left some legal experts thinking Brackeen might nonetheless constitute the most serious threat to the longstanding legislation. Kanji believes that dismantling the foundational underpinning of tribal sovereignty would likely be a step too far in overturning precedent for even a Supreme Court as radical as this one. Observers in Indian Country have long believed that attacks on the legislation have broader aims in mind than the wellbeing of children, and many anti-ICWA proponents are also perceived as gunning for access to natural resources, mineral rights and more.Ĭalling into question the authority of Congress to deal with tribal nations as distinct sovereigns would have “major reverberations throughout the field of Indian law,” said Riyaz Kanji, a longtime attorney for tribes and principal advisor to the Tribal Supreme Court Project. Should ICWA fall, it’s not only adoption and foster cases that will be gravely impacted the basic foundations of tribal sovereignty could be unwound. The law gives tribal courts exclusive jurisdiction over members who live on tribal land, in the hopes of keeping families together, and creates a process whereby they’re noticed and involved in cases outside of these boundaries.įor years, people and organizations hostile to ICWA have tried to erode the legislation through the court system. ICWA establishes minimum standards for a Native child to be removed from their home and empowers tribes to be more involved in adoption and custody procedures for kids enrolled or eligible to enroll in tribal nations. Between 18, hundreds of thousands of children were taken from their families and homes. Haaland-a direct assault on the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), and by extension, the very right of tribes to be classified as sovereign nations - is expected later this month.Įnacted in 1978, ICWA was part of the federal government’s efforts to rectify the incomprehensible harm it caused to Native families through the forcible removal of Native children from their communities into boarding schools or non-Native foster and adoptive homes. A decision on the Supreme Court case Brackeen v. ![]() Still, an even more serious threat to tribes across the entire country looms large. ![]() ![]() “The draft was an offensive piece of legislation.”Īfter swift pushback from the Montana American Indian Caucus and activists, political will for the legislation dissipated, and Rieger announced he would not formally introduce a bill. “It was really slandering them with these gross, racist stereotypes that have existed for a long time,” McAdam said. The text of Regier’s draft resolution refers to substance abuse, domestic violence, poverty and dependence on welfare systems. “They knew exactly what they were doing,” said Travis McAdam, who directs pro-democracy efforts at the Montana Human Rights Network. Regier claimed he was motivated by genuine concern for the “lives and well-being” of Native Americans and all Montanans, asserting the system was built on race and that reservations are not “in the best interests of either the Indians inside our borders or for our common Montana citizen.” But Native lawmakers and tribal advocates saw it as something different: the latest, and perhaps most blatant, but far from only attempt to undermine tribal sovereignty. In mid-January, Montana state Senator Keith Regier floated the idea of a bill that would call on federal lawmakers to investigate alternatives to the tribal reservation system, created by federal legislation in 1851 in an effort to silo Native American people, remove them from their traditional way of life and create space for white settlers. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |