Here.
Oral Argument Transcript in Lewis v. Clarke
Here.
Here.
Here:
“Children of the Tribe”, October, sadly reports without question the Pages’ version of Lexi’s transfer to a kinship placement supported by her own attorney, the state of California and the Choctaw Nation. Worse, the article uncritically highlights the media event created by the foster parents and their counsel (and disappointingly includes photographs). The affair violated Lexi’s privacy rights, which is why state social workers attempted to block cellphone video, and may have also violated their attorney’s duties under the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct: 3.4 (fairness to opposing parties), 3.6 (trial publicity) and 4.4 (respect for rights of third persons). Hopefully, readers will not learn from this article that the best way to fight a child’s placement with her family is by creating an unethical media circus.
The article misstates the law as well. Lexi would be with her Utah relatives with or without the Indian Child Welfare Act. California law weighs placement heavily in favor of relatives, not foster families, in these cases. However, only in California could a foster family appeal the placement of their ward under its unique “de facto parent” doctrine. In addition, the Multiethnic Placement Act, enacted by Congress in 1994, explicitly excludes ICWA cases from its application. Finally, the article devolves from reportage into racial politics, asserting that this tragedy only transpired because of Lexi’s racial heritage. Lexi herself is a citizen of the Choctaw Nation. The Choctaw Nation’s citizenship requirement, like that of the United States, requires a political connection between the individual and the nation, not mere ancestry. The only reason there was a media-fueled tragedy is because counsel for the foster family pointed at the act and the Choctaw Nation to incite race-based animosity when the facts and the law were not in their favor.
Matthew L.M. Fletcher
East Lansing,
Here are the cert stage materials in Aguayo v. Jewell:
Lower court materials here.
Dewi Ione Ball has published “The Erosion of Tribal Power: The Supreme Court’s Silent Revolution” with the University of Oklahoma Press.
Here is the book page.
Here is the blurb:
For the past 180 years, the inherent power of indigenous tribes to govern themselves has been a central tenet of federal Indian law. Despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s repeated confirmation of Native sovereignty since the early 1830s, it has, in the past half-century, incrementally curtailed the power of tribes to govern non-Indians on Indian reservations. The result, Dewi Ioan Ball argues, has been a “silent revolution,” mounted by particular justices so gradually and quietly that the significance of the Court’s rulings has largely evaded public scrutiny.
Ball begins his examination of the erosion of tribal sovereignty by reviewing the so-called Marshall trilogy, the three cases that established two fundamental principles: tribal sovereignty and the power of Congress to protect Indian tribes from the encroachment of state law. Neither the Supreme Court nor Congress has remained faithful to these principles, Ball shows. Beginning with Williams v. Lee, a 1959 case that highlighted the tenuous position of Native legal authority over reservation lands and their residents, Ball analyzes multiple key cases, demonstrating how the Supreme Cour
t’s decisions weakened the criminal, civil, and taxation authority of tribal nations. During an era when many tribes were strengthening their economies and preserving their cultural identities, the high court was undermining sovereignty. In Atkinson Trading Co. v. Shirley (2001) and Nevada v. Hicks (2001), for example, the Court all but obliterated tribal authority over non-Indians on Native land.
By drawing on the private papers of Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justices Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, William O. Douglas, Lewis F. Powell Jr., and Hugo L. Black, Ball offers crucial insight into federal Indian law from the perspective of the justices themselves. The Erosion of Tribal Power shines much-needed light on crucial changes to federal Indian law between 1959 and 2001 and discusses how tribes have dealt with the political and economic consequences of the Court’s decisions.
Download(PDF): Brief for Respondent
Here is the petition in Meyers v. Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin:
Questions presented:
1. Whether Congress abrogated the sovereign immunity of an Indian tribe under 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., by providing that “any…government” may be liable for damages.
2. Whether an individual who receives a computer generated cash register receipt displaying more than the last five digits of the individual’s credit card number and the card’s expiration date has suffered a concrete injury sufficient to confer standing under Article III of the United States Constitution.
Lower court materials here.
Here is the brief filed in Alaska v. Jewell:
Here are the cert petitions:
Here is the May 18 shortlist. Here is yesterday’s list. There is some overlap but there is a new list post-election.
If you look around, you’ll see some profiles of the potential nominees (kinda) advocating for that person. Here are some examples of profiles of some of the more moderate candidates: Bloomberg profiled Joan Larsen; Allison Eid profiled here. Given the emphasis of the presumptive President-Elect on media, it seems plausible if not downright likely that the nominee will be the person that will generate the most attention on TV. Perhaps that means if none of these potential candidates generate enough media excitement (and yes that includes intense controversy) then we might not see any of them nominated. (Former?) #NeverTrump-er Don Willett (profiled here) might be the best bet because he is already an internet star (in legal circles anyway).
For all we know today, the presumptive President-Elect is trolling Dems (and maybe some Rs) to learn which of the people on the shortlist is most offensive, and therefore generates the most controversy and media attention.
You must be logged in to post a comment.