Patricia Leach/Catawba Nation: Legislative Hearing on S.1750, S.3859, S.4053 & H.R.226, Sept. 26, 2026. Click on the image above to view the video of Assistant Chief Patricia Leach’s testimony before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.
When Congress settled the Catawba Indian Nation’s land claims in 1993, it imposed federal requirements on who could become a citizen. Specifically, the Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina Land Claims Settlement Act of 1993 stated that, “[t]he Tribe shall have the right to determine future membership in the Tribe; however, in no event may an individual be enrolled as a tribal member unless the individual is a lineal descendant of a person on the final base membership roll and has continued to maintain political relations with the Tribe.” (Emphasis added.)
Those requirements helped identify recipients of settlement payments, but the payments ended decades ago, while the federal restriction remained.
Now Catawba is asking Congress to remove it. Assistant Chief Patricia Leach testified that S. 3859 would return citizenship decisions to the Nation’s Constitution and laws. If passed, the bill would strike the clause from the 1993 land claims settlement act limiting enrollment to individuals who are lineal descendants of persons on the final base membership roll and who have continued to maintain political relations with the Tribe.
The larger issue is Tribal power over membership. A federal rule created to distribute settlement money in a land claims settlement act in 1993 became an enduring restriction on Catawba’s power to define its own political community.
A portion of Assistant Chief Patricia Leach’s testimony is here:
What the Bill Does S. 3859 strikes a portion of a single sentence from Section 7(d) of the Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina Land Claims Settlement Act of 1993. That clause currently prevents the Nation from enrolling any new citizen unless that person is a lineal descendant of an individual on the 1962 final roll and has maintained “continued political relations” with the Tribe. If enacted, the bill would restore to the Catawba Indian Nation the authority to determine its own citizenship criteria under its Constitution. That authority is one of the most basic attributes of tribal sovereignty, respected by the Federal government for virtually all Tribal Nations. The bill does not rewrite the Nation’s Constitution, does not create any new federal program, and does not affect any other provision of the Settlement Act. Why the Bill Is Needed Congress enacted the Settlement Act in 1993 to resolve the Nation’s longstanding land claims, restore the federal trust relationship, and provide for a monetary settlement. The federal enrollment language in Section 7(d) was included in that settlement context. It helped identify a fixed number of individuals entitled to share in settlement-related distributions and provided an administrable federal standard at that time. Those monetary distributions were completed decades ago. The federal restriction has outlived that purpose. Today, it no longer serves as a settlement-administration tool. Instead, it operates as a continuing federal limitation on the Nation’s ability to define its own political community. The provision also includes the phrase “continued political relations,” a standard that is undefined in the Act and difficult to administer. Tribal staff must determine whether an applicant has demonstrated a sufficient political connection to the Nation, even though that standard is not clearly defined by Congress. Removing this language will allow the Nation to administer citizenship through its own Constitution and laws rather than through an outdated federal overlay.
Today is Michigan Indian Day, designated by Michigan law as the fourth Friday of every September.
In honor of the day, I’m offering a snapshot of what Tribal sovereignty looks like in Michigan. It includes:
Land Back • Treaty Rights • Citizenship • Education • Child Welfare • Health Care • Policing • Courts • Utilities • Economic Regulation • Manoomin • Culturally Grounded Governance
Below are 12 recent examples, one drawn from each Michigan Tribe.
It looks like bringing ancestral land home, and deciding what happens next. At the end of 2024, 188 acres along West Grand Traverse Bay were returned to the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. GTB named the land Mashkiigaki, “place of the medicines,” reflecting its significance for hunting, fishing, gathering, medicines, wetlands, and coastal habitat. Since then, GTB has begun reconnecting Tribal citizens with the land and laying the groundwork for ecocultural restoration. The Tribe has surveyed citizens about their memories and aspirations for Mashkiigaki, initiated bird and invasive species surveys, planned a study of creek and wetland hydrology, and begun mapping sensitive habitat and possible public access routes. In 2026, GTB received approximately $1.3 million from NOAA, part of the federal grant approved in 2024, to support restoration and community engagement at Mashkiigaki. The planning remains Tribal-led, with elders, citizens, and government staff helping determine the land’s future. GTB’s announcement on the return of Mashkiigaki
It looks like leading a fight to protect treaty-protected waters.Bay Mills Indian Community has been a central leader in the Tribal campaign against both the existing Line 5 dual pipelines and Enbridge’s proposed tunnel beneath the Straits of Mackinac. Its opposition is grounded in the 1836 Treaty of Washington, treaty-protected fishing and gathering rights, and the Tribe’s sovereign responsibility to protect Michilimackinac, a sacred place at the heart of Anishinaabe creation traditions. Bay Mills formally called for Line 5’s decommissioning in March 2015, supported Michigan’s 2020 revocation and termination of Enbridge’s 1953 easement, and in 2021 formally banished Line 5 from Tribal lands, including the Straits. The Tribe also helped bring the dispute before the U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, which in 2023 recommended that the United States and Canada decommission Line 5. In litigation over the existing crossing, Bay Mills filed amicus briefs supporting the State’s efforts to keep its shutdown cases in state court, including a 2023 Sixth Circuit brief in Nessel v. Enbridge on behalf of a coalition that NARF describes as more than 60 Tribal Nations and First Nations.
Bay Mills has simultaneously challenged the proposed tunnel before the Michigan Public Service Commission, EGLE, the Michigan courts, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It intervened in the MPSC proceeding and introduced Tribal and expert testimony on treaty rights, fisheries, climate impacts, alternatives, and tunnel explosion risks. It also challenged EGLE’s 2021 wetlands permit and participated in the Army Corps’ federal review as a cooperating agency. In March 2025, Bay Mills and other Tribes withdrew as cooperating agencies after the Corps moved to fast-track approval under the asserted national “energy emergency.” The MPSC approved the tunnel in December 2023, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in February 2025. In July 2026, the Michigan Supreme Court vacated the MPSC’s approval. It remanded for a new analysis of the project’s environmental effects, feasible alternatives, and impacts on public trust resources (In re Application of Enbridge Energy to Replace & Relocate Line 5, No. 168335 (Mich. July 31, 2026)). EGLE had approved wetlands and bottomlands permits for the tunnel two weeks earlier. The Army Corps issued its record of decision in August notwithstanding the ruling, and Bay Mills condemned the federal decision as a breach of treaty and trust responsibilities. In September 2026, after Governor Whitmer announced that EGLE would re-review its permits, Bay Mills and three other Tribal Nations petitioned for a contested case hearing to overturn them. Bay Mills’ Line 5 information portalMichigan Supreme Court decision
It looks like deciding who belongs to the political community. In March 2026, Hannahville Indian Community amended its Tribal Enrollment Ordinance, governing membership applications, the Enrollment Committee, appeals, records, relinquishment, and loss of membership. Few exercises of governmental authority are more foundational than determining the citizenship of the political community. Hannahville’s 2026 Tribal Enrollment Ordinance
It looks like reshaping a regional education system.Keweenaw Bay Indian Community is leading a five-year Promise Neighborhood covering the L’Anse Reservation and surrounding Baraga County. The cradle-to-career initiative links local schools with early childhood, family, college, and career supports; KBIC cultural advocates and Ojibwe language instructors also work with area schools to bring Ojibwe language, history, and culture into classrooms. KBIC Promise NeighborhoodsU.S. Department of Education project profile
It looks like exercising responsibility for Tribal children under Tribal law. The Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe governs child protection through its own Children’s Code and institutions. Tribal law provides for Children’s Court jurisdiction, child protection proceedings, foster care and child care regulation, adoption, and other matters affecting Tribal children, while Anishnaabeg Child and Family Services carries out child and family services within that Tribal governmental and legal framework. Saginaw Chippewa Children’s CodeAnishnaabeg Child and Family Services
It looks like building a health system across the Upper Peninsula. The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians operates nine health clinics or centers across its 7-county service area, providing varying combinations of medical, dental, behavioral health, pharmacy, and other services. Earlier this week, the Tribe broke ground on a major expansion and renovation of its Sault Health Center, designed to improve patient care while maintaining connections to Anishinaabe spiritual and cultural beliefs. Sault Tribe Health DivisionSeptember 22 groundbreaking announcement
It looks like making jurisdiction work across borders. In October 2025, the City of Petoskey formally swore in Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians Tribal Police under a cross-deputization arrangement allowing LTBB officers to assist within city jurisdiction. Petoskey officers, in turn, were to be sworn in by LTBB so they could respond where the Tribe has primary jurisdiction. The arrangement is especially striking given that shortly after LTBB’s federal reaffirmation, local officials once accused its officers of “impersonating police officers.” Today, Tribal and local governments extend law enforcement authority to one another. Petoskey Department of Public Safety 2025 Annual ReportFrank Ettawageshik recounts LTBB’s earlier cross-deputization history
It looks like a Tribal court telling another branch of Tribal government what the Constitution requires. In Romanelli v. Tribal Council, the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Tribal Court ruled in May that the Ogema’s proposed FY2026 budget had become the Tribal budget by operation of the Constitution and issued a writ of mandamus requiring the Tribal Council to appropriate the funds. That’s Tribal constitutional law in action, with a Tribal judiciary resolving a separation of powers dispute within Tribal government. Romanelli v. Tribal Council order
It looks like making sure the drinking water is safe and the sewer system works. In March, the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians (Gun Lake Tribe) enacted a new Water and Sewer Act. The law creates a Tribal regulatory system covering utility connections, permits, inspections, industrial discharges, water use restrictions, enforcement, fines, and Tribal Court proceedings. Sometimes sovereignty looks like constitutional litigation, and sometimes it looks like the sewer code. Gun Lake Tribe Water and Sewer Act
It looks like regulating a new market, and mobilizing government to protect citizens. In 2025, the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians entered a Tribal-State cannabis compact allowing a Tribally regulated cannabis business to participate in Michigan’s regulated market. Then, in January, amid concerns about ICE activity affecting Native people, the Tribal Council issued formal guidance to citizens, waived fees for replacement Tribal IDs, and directed citizens to Tribal enrollment, law enforcement, leadership, and legal offices for assistance. LVD–Michigan cannabis agreementLVD Tribal Council statement regarding ICE activity
It looks like making law for a relative rather than merely regulating a commodity. In September 2025, the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi enacted a Mnomen (Wild Rice) Code. The law recognizes Mnomen as the Tribe’s official grain and a protected Tribal resource, creates a Mnomen Wgema composed of Tribal citizens, regulates harvesting and transplantation, authorizes enforcement by Tribal conservation officers, and provides penalties for violations. The Code also recognizes Mnomen as a living spirit, medicine, and part of the Tribe’s migration story. Environmental regulation, cultural responsibility, and Indigenous law operate here in the same legal framework. NHBP Mnomen (Wild Rice) Code
It looks like designing governmental institutions on Indigenous terms. Under the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians’ Elders Council Code, the Elders Council is a governmental instrumentality that provides guidance to the membership and to the Band’s legislative, executive, and judicial institutions on matters of history, traditions, and culture. Pokagon law also permits one of the seven Tribal Council seats to be held by an Elders Council representative, who carries all the rights and responsibilities of a Tribal Councilperson. Pokagon Elders Council Code, current through May 2026
Every day across the state, each of Michigan’s 12 Tribes exercises governmental authority over lands, resources, institutions, services, and citizens.
The House Natural Resources Committee is moving to support Tribal buffalo restoration while the BLM is proposing a grazing rule that could make some bison restoration projects harder to sustain on federal land.
On September 15, the House Natural Resources Committee advanced the Don Young Doug LaMalfa Indian Buffalo Management Act. H.R. 7954 would support Tribal buffalo programs, authorize Interior to transfer surplus buffalo from federal land to Indian land, and require Interior’s buffalo management policy for Indian land to follow Tribal laws and Tribally approved plans. Interior has testified in support of the bill.
In May, BLM revoked American Prairie’s permits to graze bison on federal land in Montana, saying the Taylor Grazing Act permits grazing only for livestock managed primarily for production. BLM has also proposed applying a “production-oriented livestock” requirement to BLM grazing permits outside Alaska and eliminating the separate permit provision for indigenous animals. The comment period closed July 13; the rule hasn’t been finalized.
American Prairie’s herd has supplied bison to other herds for food sovereignty, cultural restoration, and hunting. On September 4, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction for the three allotments where its bison already graze, finding American Prairie likely to succeed on its claims. The judge expressly considered the effects of BLM’s decision on American Prairie’s Tribal partners.
The proposed rule would also reach Tribal herds directly. BLM said its American Prairie decision did not affect Tribal grazing authorizations or Tribal bison herds, but the proposed rule contains no Tribal exclusion. When BLM first applied the production-oriented test to American Prairie in January, the Coalition of Large Tribes protested that it would make it unlikely any Tribal herd could qualify for BLM leases, including those the Fort Bidwell Indian Community and Pit River Tribe are seeking for their buffalo. The proposed rule would apply that test to BLM grazing permits outside Alaska, and COLT has objected that it was published without prior Tribal consultation.
The bill wouldn’t decide American Prairie’s case or govern BLM grazing permits. But the case shows why the proposed rule matters to Tribal restoration, since buffalo raised on federal land can be part of bringing buffalo back to Tribal communities.
In my earlier post today, I wrote that neither S. 4976 nor S. 4638 would require HHS to evaluate each state’s compliance with ICWA. That’s true of the bills, but it leaves out an important piece of existing law.
Congress has already required federal assessment and reporting. 42 U.S.C. § 628d directed HHS to develop an ICWA technical assistance plan by October 1, 2025. The plan must use data sufficient to assess state performance on identifying Indian children, notifying Tribes, transferring cases to Tribal court, and complying with ICWA’s requirements for placements and termination of parental rights. Every two years, HHS must report to Congress on state compliance and federal efforts to improve it.
That framework isn’t fully operating, however. In a report dated July 15, 2026, ACF described the plan as still under development. As of September 23, I couldn’t locate a published plan or an announcement that it had been completed.
Existing federal data is limited. States currently report only four categories of ICWA-related information through AFCARS, and ACF has identified serious reliability problems. A 2024 rule will substantially expand that collection, but states won’t begin collecting the new data until October 1, 2028. The first files containing the new data aren’t due to ACF until May 15, 2029. That leaves the central gap identified by the Commission on Native Children. The Commission didn’t only ask for better information. Recommendation 2 called for improvement plans when states fall short and for progress toward ICWA benchmarks to matter for federal child welfare funding.
Current law doesn’t create that system. States must describe their ICWA measures in their Title IV-B plans, and HHS has general authority to enforce compliance with approved plans. In its 2024 AFCARS rule, however, ACF stated that it has no jurisdiction to impose consequences on states under ICWA, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs has told ACF that it has no role in enforcing state compliance either. The law establishes no substantive ICWA performance benchmarks and doesn’t require ICWA-specific corrective plans or funding consequences when a state falls short.
That doesn’t mean any funding penalty would improve compliance. Justice Anne McKeig of the Minnesota Supreme Court told ACF in a 2025 comment that Minnesota law allows the state to reduce federal funding to counties it finds didn’t fully comply with ICWA in the preceding year, sometimes because of a technicality outside the county’s control. She warned that the penalty can deprive a struggling county of the money it needs to provide active efforts. The Commission proposed a more calibrated approach that includes improvement plans with benchmarks, with progress tied either to continued federal funding or to additional incentive funds.
ACF’s consultation report records Tribal recommendations for annual state reporting and actionable improvement plans. It also records a recommendation that states failing to consult with Tribes not receive administrative costs. ACF didn’t commit to those measures.
Ultimately, neither S. 4976 nor S. 4638 closes this gap. Congress has required the federal government to identify where states are falling short, but it hasn’t created the improvement and accountability system the Commission recommended.
An immediate opportunity
ACF is accepting written comments from Tribes for its 2026 Annual Tribal Consultation until 5:00 p.m. ET this Friday, September 25. Comments can be sent to tribalaffairs@acf.hhs.gov with the subject line “ACF Tribal Consultation Testimony.”
Tribal Nations could ask ACF to publish the § 628d plan, state whether and when it was completed, and explain how it will assess and respond to state noncompliance before the expanded AFCARS data become available.
Update, September 23, 2026: This post understated what current federal law already requires. Congress has required federal assessment of state ICWA compliance, but it hasn’t tied shortfalls to corrective plans or funding consequences. See the follow-up post.
In 2024, the Alyce Spotted Bear and Walter Soboleff Commission on Native Children issued The Way Forward, with 29 recommendations shaped by testimony across Native communities. Several bills now respond to its call for stronger Tribal services. They’d give Tribes more resources to care for children. They wouldn’t add the state ICWA accountability measures the Commission sought in Recommendation 2.
The Senate Indian Affairs Committee’s 2025 discussion draft had nine titles, beginning with Child Welfare. The introduced Native Children’s Commission Implementation Act, S. 4976, has eight. Child welfare proposals also appear in the separately introduced Promoting Strong Native Families and Children Act, S. 4638. A third proposal addresses Tribal funding under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, or CAPTA. NICWA is urging support for all three.
What the bills carry forward:
S. 4976 would codify the family-centered Tiwahe Initiative, expand it beyond ten pilot sites, and authorize $100 million annually. It would also protect recurring Tribal justice base support for Tribes in Public Law 280 states.
S. 4638 would increase several Tribal child welfare funding set-asides, create a 5% Tribal allocation in the Social Services Block Grant, and let qualifying Tribes operate a Title IV-E prevention-only program.
Those provisions answer significant parts of Recommendation 1, though they don’t provide the full funding parity the Commission envisioned. The separate CAPTA bill addresses another part of that recommendation.
Where S. 4976 stops short:
Recommendation 29 called for a government-wide Native data and research office. The bill proposes a Tribal Health Research Office at NIH.
Recommendation 23 called for screening places Native children frequent for toxic exposures and providing an assessment when a patient or parent requests one. The bill would build environmental health training and referral systems, but wouldn’t require either measure.
Recommendation 14 asked Congress to fund afterschool programs for Native children. The bill would allow afterschool programming under existing grants without providing new funding.
What remains outside these bills: Recommendation 2 called for HHS to assess how states implement ICWA and promote improvement. It also proposed specialized ICWA courts and enforceable plans to preserve a child’s connection to their Native community after adoption by a non-Native family. Those measures matter when a state fails to identify a child’s Tribe, involve it in the case, or sustain the child’s connections after adoption. None of the three bills adds them.
A 2024 ACF rule requires states to report additional ICWA-related data through AFCARS. NICWA is pressing for its full implementation and notes that the data will help ACF meet its existing duty to report to Congress on state ICWA compliance. The rule will provide data the federal government has long lacked. Neither S. 4976 nor S. 4638 would require HHS to evaluate each state’s compliance with ICWA or require a state to improve when it falls short. The Commission also recommended tying a state’s progress to its federal child welfare funding; neither bill does that.
Recent warnings that AI is advancing faster than government can control it have focused on threats to jobs, democracy, and even humanity. Whatever you might think of the most extreme predictions, AI needs guardrails and too few jurisdictions are responding. For tribes, that’s a sovereignty question.
The Cherokee Nation’s AI policy and Data Sovereignty and Governance Task Force report offers an important model of executive action. But Tribes aren’t merely employers. Sure, they purchase technology, control data and resources, own businesses, and manage employees, but they also legislate, regulate, prosecute, adjudicate, provide remedies, and negotiate with other governments.
Tribes can begin to take action by inventorying AI uses and assessing risks to citizens, elections, decision-making processes, Indigenous data, cultural knowledge, jurisdiction, treaty rights, and future generations. One possible approach is to use a sequence like below, with steps that will overlap and that can proceed in parallel:
continuous risk assessment → executive policy → employment, contracting, and procurement protections → administrative capacity → Tribal legislation creating rights, duties, oversight, and remedies → Tribal enforcement and remedies →intergovernmental and external enforcement
Jurisdictional limits matter, especially when vendors, data, or harmful actors are beyond a Tribe’s reach. But those limits make contracts and intergovernmental agreements more important; they don’t justify inaction. The magnitude of the risks also requires inter-Tribal coordination and resource-sharing between Tribes.
The question isn’t simply how Tribal employees should use AI. It’s how Tribal governments will exercise sovereignty over it.
Public Law 959, known as the Indian Relocation Act of 1956, was enacted on August 3, 1956. The National Archives has assembled an excellent online guide to BIA urban relocation records, including the original statute, federal relocation promotional materials, field office records, case files, and records from the relocation offices including the Chicago relocation office for folks interested in Great Lakes relocation history.
Who really decides what statutes say? Most Americans think that special interests play an outsized role in our lawmaking processes. Yet empirical studies have produced little evidence that special interests get everything, or even most of, what they ask for from Congress. This article takes an innovative new approach in tackling the difficult question of how advocates influence legislation. It presents the first, comprehensive empirical study of how advocates influence the law through amendments in the legislative process. The article analyzes an original dataset of 2137 witnesses testifying at referral hearings on 108 Indian related bills in the 97th and 106th Congresses. The analysis identifies amendments as an important yet previously undocumented way in which advocates influence legislation. It uncovers a rarely observed relationship between legislative advocates and sitting members of Congress. Comparison of advocates’ testimony on bills to amendments proposed by committee members reveals similar and even identical language, providing compelling evidence that groups persuaded legislators to introduce amendments valued by the group. The analysis also demonstrates how advocate influence at the hearing and mark up stage of the legislative process frequently shapes the law by dramatically increasing the likelihood of legislative enactment. These findings reveal an important mechanism that advocates can use to change the law. Further, they challenge prevailing narratives about power by demonstrating how underrepresented groups can leverage the legislative process in their law reform efforts.
You must be logged in to post a comment.