This was Part II, Part I was here.
Penn Law and Field Center Panel on ICWA [more post-argument discussion]
This was Part II, Part I was here.
This was Part II, Part I was here.
Fletcher and Randall F. Khalil have published “Preemption, Commandeering, and the Indian Child Welfare Act” in the Wisconsin Law Review.
Blurb:
We argue that the anti-commandeering challenges against ICWA are unfounded because all provisions of ICWA provide a set of legal standards to be applied in states which validly and expressly preempt state law without unlawfully commandeering the states’ executive or legislative branches. Congress’s power to compel state courts to apply federal law is long established and beyond question.

Here.


Here.
Each side presented their oral arguments Wednesday to the U.S. Supreme Court for the most serious challenge to the Indian Child Welfare Act in recent memory. The decision in Haaland v. Brackeen will be a major force in the future of ICWA and the scope of tribal sovereignty. Today on Native America Calling, Shawn Spruceanalyzes the legal debate from a Native perspective with Matthew Fletcher (Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians), law professor at the University of Michigan Law School and author of the Turtle Talk blog; independent journalist Suzette Brewer (citizen of the Cherokee Nation); and Dr. Sarah Kastelic (Alutiiq), director of the National Indian Child Welfare Association.
Posted an earlier draft of this before, but here is the all-but-final version, now available on SSRN here.
Here is “Preemption, Commandeering, and the Indian Child Welfare Act,” published in the Wisconsin Law Review.

“ICWA doesn’t prevent an individualized assessment of the best placement for each child,” says Kathryn Fort, director of the Indian Law Clinic at Michigan State University. State courts do this type of assessment “every day,” she says, adding, “I personally don’t know a state court judge who would be comfortable being told that they weren’t allowed to do an individualized assessment.”
But for an Indian child, Fort says, that individualized assessment includes consideration of the child’s relationship with her relatives, her language, her religion, and her tribal tradition.
“A child isn’t separate from her tribe,” she adds. “That child is sacred to that tribe.”
WaPo (check out Fred Urbina’s picture!)
Oral arguments in the case are tomorrow (11/9) at 10am. Live audio can be streamed here.
Please join the Indigenous Law and Policy Center this Wednesday, November 9, at 6:00 p.m. ET for a post-oral argument discussion of Brackeen over Zoom. Wenona Singel will be moderating this conversation with speakers Matthew L.M. Fletcher, Melody McCoy and April Youpee-Roll.
The link to register is here. Please see the below flyer for more information.
You must be logged in to post a comment.