Tuesday, November 29, 2022

The Indian Child Welfare Act and Haaland v. Brackeen.

Indian Child Welfare Act.

The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, enacted November 8, 1978), is a United States federal law that governs jurisdiction over the removal of Native American (Indian) children from their families in custody, foster care and adoption cases.

It gives tribal governments exclusive jurisdiction over children who reside on, or are domiciled on a reservation. It gives concurrent, but presumptive jurisdiction over foster care placement proceedings for Native American children who do not live on the reservation.

ICWA gives tribal governments a strong voice concerning child custody proceedings that involve Native children, by allocating tribes exclusive jurisdiction over the case when the child resides on, or is domiciled on, the reservation, or when the child is a ward of the tribe; and concurrent, but presumptive, jurisdiction over non-reservation Native Americans' foster care placement proceedings.


- Haaland v. Brackeen.

Haaland v. Brackeen is a pending Supreme Court of the United States case brought by the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Indiana, and individual plaintiffs, that seeks to declare the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) unconstitutional. In addition to Haaland v. Brackeen (docket no. 21-376), three additional cases have been consolidated to be heard at the same time. Those cases are Cherokee Nation v. Brackeen, Texas v. Haaland, and Brackeen v. Haaland.

The matter originally came up in a Texas District Court on an adoption petition filed by Chad and Jennifer Brackeen. After their effort was challenged by the Navajo Tribe, the Brackeens brought suit in the U.S. District Court in Fort Worth. The Cherokee Nation, Oneida Nation, Quinault Indian Nation, and Morongo Band of Mission Indians intervened in the case. The U.S. District Court declared that the ICWA was unconstitutional and the case was appealed.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court in a panel opinion. The full court, on rehearing the case en banc, held that parts of the law, that set federal standards for lower and state courts, were constitutional; but that the parts of the law that required state agencies to perform certain acts were unconstitutional as a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

- Tribal Sovereignty.

Tribal sovereignty in the United States is the concept of the inherent authority of indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States. Originally, the U.S. federal government recognized American Indian tribes as independent nations, and came to policy agreements with them via treaties. As the U.S. accelerated its westward expansion, internal political pressure grew for "Indian removal", but the pace of treaty-making grew nevertheless. The Civil War forged the U.S. into a more centralized and nationalistic country, fueling a "full bore assault on tribal culture and institutions", and pressure for Native Americans to assimilate.[3] In the Indian Appropriations Act of 1871, Congress prohibited any future treaties. This move was steadfastly opposed by Native Americans.[3] Currently, the U.S. recognizes tribal nations as "domestic dependent nations"[4] and uses its own legal system to define the relationship between the federal, state, and tribal governments.

__________

For more: 

Scotusblog: Haaland v. Brackeen.

Oyez: Haaland v. Brackeen.