Kristen Carpenter and Lorie Graham on Human Rights and Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

Kristen Carpenter and Lorie Graham have posted a very compelling and powerful paper about the Supreme Court’s decision in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. It is required reading for anyone interested in the case, and is destined to be the definitive paper on the international human rights aspects of the case.

The article is titled Human Rights to Culture, Family, and Self-Determination: The Case of Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. Here is the abstract:

The well-being of indigenous children is a subject of major concern for indigenous peoples and human rights advocates alike. In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl that the Indian Child Welfare Act did not prevent the adoption of a Cherokee child by a non-Indian couple. This occurred over the objections of her Cherokee biological father, extended family, and Tribal Nation. After the decision, Baby Girl’s father and the adoptive couple contested the matter in a number of proceedings, none of which considered the child’s best interests as an Indian child. The tribally-appointed attorney for Baby Girl, as well as the National Indian Child Welfare Association and National Congress for American Indians, began examining additional venues for advocacy. Believing that the human rights of Baby Girl, much like those of other similarly situated indigenous children, were being violated in contravention of the United Nations Declaration on Indigenous Peoples Rights, and other instruments of international law, they asked us to bring the matter to the attention of the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Indigenous Peoples Rights (“UNSR”). We prepared a “statement of information” to alert the UNSR of the human rights violations occurring in the case. With the permission of the attorneys and organizations involved, this chapter introduces the Baby Girl case, contextualizes the claims in international human rights law, and then reproduces the statement of information, and portions of the UNSR’s subsequent public statement. It concludes with an update on the Baby Girl case and broader discussion about the potential for using international law and legal forums to protect the human rights of indigenous children.

Two Events at Seattle U. Law School — Storytelling (Feb. 26) and ICWA (March 6)

Spring Panel 2014 Poster_A3i Final

Fernades event git-hoan3 February26

Continue reading

Oral Argument Audio in Jim Thorpe NAGPRA Matter

Here. CA3 oral argument database here.

Briefs here and here.

WaPo on Indian Polling on the Washington Football Team

Muddies the waters a great deal. Until the name goes away for good, every Indian person around is subject to scrutiny about their views on the question. It’s called microaggression.

Here.

NYTs: Church Rock, Navajo Village May Have to Move Because of Uranium Pollution

Here:

Navajo Uranium

Oregon School Mascots Issue Reaches Governor

Here. An excerpt:

Senators also heard testimony in favor of the bill from the Confederated Tribe of Siletz Indians. The Siletz Warrior mascot at the tribe’s charter school violates the current rule, but the bill would allow the tribe to keep it in place.

“A lot of the issue is we need Oregon-based curriculum in our schools,” said Robert Kentta, a member of the Siletz tribal council speaking in support of the bill. “Taking away mention of Indians in schools is not an approach that we think is productive toward that goal.”

Samuel Henry, chairman of the Oregon Board of Education, said the state needs to improve its Native American curriculum but he said the board fully vetted their ban.

Native American mascots provide no educational benefit, Henry said, and open the state up to potential lawsuits challenging the mascots.

“One question for state legislators is: Do you want to buy more kindergarten teachers or do you want to pay for attorney’s fees and staff time?” Henry said. “It’s that simple.”

Mass. COA Dismisses Challenge to State Flag

Here is the unpublished opinion in DeGuglielmo v Governor.

And a series of images behind the claim:

1852_CoatOfArms_Massachusetts_map_BPL_12850
1852 Coat of Arms

Coat of Arms
Mass. Colony Coat of Arms
State Flag
State Flag

Update to Report on Religious Freedoms of Indigenous Peoples

Here:

UPDATE TO SEPTEMBER 3, 2013 JOINT SUBMISSION TO THE U.N. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE

The original report is here.

Sens. Cantwell & Cole Letter to NFL’s Goodell

Here:

cantwell-cole-letter

News coverage here.

New Mexico SCT Affirms Decision to Recognize Mt. Taylor as Cultural Property

Here is the opinion in Rayellen Resources Inc. v. Lyons.

An excerpt:

We accepted certification from the Court of Appeals to review the decision of the New Mexico Cultural Properties Review Committee to recognize approximately 400,000 acres of public land on Mount Taylor as a registered cultural property under the New Mexico Cultural Properties Act. We affirm in part the Committee’s decision and hold that the  Mount Taylor listing was lawful under the Cultural Properties Act and that the proceedings before the Committee did not violate the constitutional guarantee of due process of law. We reverse the Committee’s inclusion of 19,000 acres of Cebolleta Land Grant property and hold that land grant property is not state land as defined in the Cultural Properties Act.

We posted on this case a while back here.