Here is the order in Doe v. Jesson (D. Minn.):
Pleadings TK:
State_Memorandum_ResponsePrelimInjuc
MilleLacs_Memorandum_ResponsePrelimInjunc
State_Memorandum_MotiontoDismiss
We posted the complaint here.
Author: Kate E. Fort
Goldwater Institute to File a Class Action Lawsuit Against ICWA
This should be a call to arms for Indian country. This is presumably a well funded organization with a litigation, scholarly, and public relations strategy. Indian country lost Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl because the adoption industry won the PR battle before Indian country even noticed. It’s time to act.
From the press release we received. This will become the third ongoing federal lawsuit challenging ICWA:
Goldwater Institute to File Class Action Lawsuit Against Indian Child Welfare Act
Institute launching Equal Protection for Indian Children Project to reform federal and state laws that discriminate against abused and neglected Native American children
Contact: Starlee Coleman, (602) 758-9162
Phoenix—Tomorrow, Tuesday, July 7, the Goldwater Institute will launch a new project to reform the Indian Child Welfare Act and similar state laws that give abused and neglected Native American children fewer rights and protections than other American children. Part of this project will be a class action lawsuit.
“When an abused child is removed from his or her home and placed in foster care or made available for adoption, judges are required to make a decision about where the child will live based on the child’s best interest. Except for Native American children. Courts are bound by federal law to disregard a Native American child’s best interest and place the child in a home with other Native Americans, even if it is not in his or her best interest,” said Darcy Olsen, president of the Goldwater Institute. “We want federal and state laws to be changed to give abused and neglected Native American children the same protections that are given to all other American children: the right to be placed in a safe home based on their best interests, not based on their race.”
On July 7, the Goldwater Institute will file a federal class action lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of core provisions of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act. The same day, the Institute will release an investigative report that documents how federal law leaves Native American children with fewer protections under the law than all other American children, and the serious consequences that have resulted from this unequal treatment. Recommendations for changes to state and federal law will also be announced.
Two weeks ago both the House and Senate passed the Native American Child Protection Act that for the first time requires prospective adoptive and foster parents to be fingerprinted. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is currently considering turning recent guidelines into formal federal rules that would further entrench the legal discrimination against Native American children.
Clint Bolick, the vice president of litigation at the Goldwater Institute, litigated a class action in Texas in 1995 that was the impetus behind the federal Multi-ethnic Placement Act, which outlawed delays or denials in foster care or adoption placements on the basis of the race, color, or national origin of the child or the adults involved.
Media is invited to watch via live stream a press event that will formally announce the details of the lawsuit, release the investigation, and policy recommendations, and screen an original 8-minute documentary film. The briefing will feature Dr. William B. Allen, the former chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
What: Press conference announcing the Equal Protection for Indian Children Project and federal class action lawsuit
When: Tuesday, July 7, 2015, 9:00 a.m. Pacific time
Where: https://www.youtube.com/user/GoldwaterInstitute
Who: Press event will feature Darcy Olsen, president of the Goldwater Institute; Clint Bolick, the Institute’s vice president of litigation; Mark Flatten, the author of the Institute’s investigative report to be released; Dr. William Allen
Please contact Starlee Coleman at scoleman@goldwaterinstitute or (602) 758-9162 with questions.
###
Two Federal Acknowledgment Determinations–Pamunkey Indian Tribe makes 567
Press release here
Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs Kevin K. Washburn today issued final determinations for two petitioners under the existing Federal Acknowledgment process. The decisions include a final determination to acknowledge the petitioner known as the Pamunkey Indian Tribe (Petitioner #323) as a federally recognized Indian tribe, and a final determination on remand to decline acknowledgment for the petitioner known as the Duwamish Tribal Organization (DTO) (Petitioner #25).
Final letter to Pamunkey here.
Final determination, Pamunkey here
Final letter to Duwamish here.
Final determination, Duwamish here.
Op-Ed in The Hill’s Congress Blog on Maine TRC and ICWA
Here.
ICWA and its guidelines recognize that indigenous children have a right to maintain their cultural and familial relations, and that tribal governments have a sovereign right to protect their children from wholesale removal. At its core, ICWA is about keeping children with their families and communities, which is why it has been recognized by the Annie E. Casey Foundation and other national child welfare groups as the “gold standard for child welfare policies and practices in the United States.” These aims are consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which the United States endorsed in 2010. And the aims are as important today as they were forty years ago when ICWA was passed, given the ongoing issues in Maine, South Dakota, and elsewhere in the United States.
Report from Coalition for Juvenile Justice and Tribal Law and Policy Institute on Status Offense Disparities
Here.
American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) young people are almost twice as likely to be petitioned to state court for skipping school, violating liquor laws, and engaging in other behaviors that are only illegal because of their age (often known as status offenses). Once involved with the state court system, they are less likely to be placed on probation and experience higher rates of detention and residential placements. Although we do not know the exact reasons for these disparities, recent efforts to better serve these youth have focused on responding to trauma and exposure to violence, better addressing substance abuse issues and mental health needs, addressing family needs, and offering more diversion programs and youth leadership development opportunities. This brief looks at the disparities faced in the state system by AI/AN youth who are charged with status offenses, the ability of both state and tribal systems to respond to status offenses, and federal funding levels to support efforts to better serve these youth.
From Doctrine to Discovery Event, June 25-26 in D.C.
Information here.
The workshop ‘From Doctrine to Declaration’, hosted by the University of St Andrews, Scotland and the College of William and Mary seeks to bring both the Christian Doctrine of Discovery and the UNDRIP into the public forum of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, to discuss how the rights of Indigenous Peoples can move forward in the United States. In particular, the workshop highlights those issues currently facing Indian Country that result from the continued existence of the Christian Doctrine of Discovery – including child welfare, environment, treaty rights, federal recognition, and education – and that in reality have the potential to be addressed by adherence to the UNDRIP. This workshop brings leading, mostly Native, advocates, academics and practitioners together with an invited audience of policymakers, think tanks, grant-making foundations and non-governmental organizations for this much-needed discussion.
Two Unpublished Notice Cases out of California
Two unpublished cases, both out of the second district.
Here.
Where the court spends considerable time interpreting the California statute regarding generations and ICWA notice. CWS has to notice the federally recognized tribes mentioned (Cherokee, Apache, Oglala).
Here.
Posted for the response CWS gives the Cherokee Nation:
The Cherokee Nation tribe responded, stating it could not verify whether the child had Indian heritage from its tribe. It needed additional information, including, among other things, dates of birth for some ancestors. In bold highlighted letters, it said it needed the middle name of the child’s great-great-great-grand
father [B.W.] and “also his wife’s name.” (We use initials instead of the family members’ full names for confidentiality purposes.)CWS responded to the tribe’s letter. It said, “Our Department only sends ICWA-030 notices after all avenues of research have been completed, therefore we have already supplied your tribe with as much information as possible. Our notice provided all information known to the family.”
Of course, if you’ve been reading along with the California notice cases, you too know this is often not the case. Regardless, the court found notice sufficient in this case (no way to know if “B.W. even had a middle name.”).
Rehearing Denied in Tununak II (ICWA Placement Preferences)
NACC Blog Post by Prof. Sankaran on State Child Welfare Court Systems
Here.
While judges are legally required to play the role of the rights-protector, in practice, they are sent a different message. They are encouraged to collaborate with child welfare agencies, even while litigation is pending before them involving that same agency. They are implicitly – or explicitly – told not to make negative findings against the agency for fear that such a finding could jeopardize the agency’s funding. In fact, judges are invited to participate in inter-agency task forces on how to make “better” findings to appease federal auditors. And they celebrate when their state agency secures federal funding based on the drafting of their orders.
Supreme Court Grants Cert in Dollar General
Despite the SG’s brief recommending otherwise–order list here.
Previous coverage here.
From the original cert petition by Dollar General:
In this case, a divided panel of the Fifth Circuit held that tribal courts do have that jurisdiction. Five judges dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc. The case accordingly presents the issue the Court left open in Hicks and the Question the Court granted certiorari to decide in Plains Commerce:
Whether Indian tribal courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate civil tort claims against nonmembers, including as a means of regulating the conduct of nonmembers who enter into consensual relationships with a tribe or its members?
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.