N.R. v. Ellison: Another ICWA Challenge Seeks Supreme Court Review

In March, Matthew posted the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision rejecting an equal protection challenge to ICWA for lack of standing. The foster parents have now asked SCOTUS to review that decision. On August 26, the Minnesota AG, Red Lake Nation, the children’s guardian ad litem, the mother, and Faribault-Martin County Human Services filed their brief in opposition.

The petitioners ask the Court to decide the equal protection question that the Court didn’t reach in Brackeen, arguing that ICWA and the Minnesota Indian Family Preservation Act impose race-based placement preferences. They also ask the Court to review a First Amendment claim that denying intervention because the foster parents raised a constitutional challenge was itself unconstitutional.

The brief in opposition identifies substantial obstacles to review that make the case a poor vehicle for resolving the equal protection issue left unresolved in Brackeen while also separately arguing that the equal protection claim should fail on the merits since ICWA/MIPFA use political rather than racial classifications under Morton v. Mancari. It also defends the intervention denial as constitutional.

Cert petition

Brief in Opposition of Respondents

Tribal Amicus Brief in Suncor v. Boulder

Here:

Yes.
We’re against this, in case one wondered.

Suncor, BTW, is a truly heinous polluter.

Teck Metals v. Colville Cert Petition

Here:

Question presented:

The question presented is whether CERCLA authorizes damages for the felt loss of a cultural connection to natural resources.

Lower court materials here.

United States v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Cert Petition

Here:

Lower court materials here.

Related: J.R. Simplot Co. LLC v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes petition:

Wilton Rancheria Files Cert Petition in Labor Dispute

Here is the petition in Wilton Rancheria v. UNITE HERE:

Question presented:

Notwithstanding the deference afforded to arbitration awards, arbitrators lack the power to facially invalidate federal and state statutes. Similarly, courts defer to Tribal interpretation of Tribal law, as a critical element of longstanding policies upholding and safeguarding Tribal sovereignty. Does an arbitrator exceed his authority when he facially invalidates a duly-enacted Tribal law, especially when a court would not do so and when he would not be permitted to invalidate a duly-enacted federal or state statute?

Lower court materials here. Ninth Circuit unpublished opinion here.

Diego Rivera at the Detroit Institute of Art

SCOTUS Confirms Constitutional Birthright Citizenship Right over Four Dissenters

Here is the opinion in Trump v. Barbara.

One excerpt, suggesting Indians are like diplomats, what I’ve been saying all along, dammit:

Page 5 (majority)

Another, more explicitly, on Indians as diplomats:

Page 12 (majority)

Another on the government’s ridiculousness re: Elk v. Wilkins:

Page 23 n. 5 (majority)

From Justice Jackson’s concurrence, the only intellectually honest opinion from this rat’s nest of white supremacy:

Page 17-18 (Jackson, J., concurring)

On why birthright citizenship is an issue in 2026:

Page 19 (Jackson, J., concurring)

On the Indian Citizenship Act:

Page 15 n. 5 (Jackson, J., concurring)

The possible seeds for an undoing of the contemptible Elk v. Wilkins decision, which also rested on Dred Scott:

Page 20 (Jackson, J., concurring)

Justice Thomas’ dissent (the principal dissent) waxed on and on about “tribal Indians,” leading (I suggest) to at least two conclusions: (1) the United States does not have the power to tax “tribal Indians”; (2) the right of tribal self-government derives from international customary law (here comes UNDRIP!); and (3) Elk is wrong:

Pages 24-26 (Thomas, J., dissenting)

More Elk is wrong fodder:

Page 30-31 (Thomas, J., dissenting)

More on Elk, though in reliance this time:

Pages 36-37 (Thomas, J., dissenting)

On the Indian Citizenship Act:

Page 41 n. 7 (Thomas, J., dissenting)

Wha?? China is less or equally alien than the Cherokee Nation?

Page 62-63 (Thomas, J., dissenting)

Tribal Indians” in same category as diplomats and “hostile alien occupiers” — this is getting weird:

Page 65 (Thomas, J., dissenting)

Nothing from me on Kavanaugh or Alito, who don’t merit attention.

SCOTUS Denies Cert in U.S. v. Hopson (whether feds can prosecute lesser included offenses under MCA)

Here is today’s order list.

Petition

BIO

Lower court decision here.

Coalition of Large Tribes Joins Oil Company Efforts to Undo Boulder County’s Fight Against Climate Change

Here is COLT’s amicus brief in support of the petition for writ of certiorari in Suncor Energy (USA) Inc. v. Board of Commissioners for Boulder County:

Supreme Court Sends Voting Rights Case Back to the Eighth Circuit

On May 18, 2026, in Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe, the petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit was granted, the judgment was vacated, and the case was remanded to the Eighth Circuit in light of Louisiana v. Callais (2026). You can see the order here.

You can see the cert petition here and Eighth Circuit materials here. You can see more about the Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais here and the opinion here.

Hopson Brief in Opposition

Here:

Cert petition here.