Federal Brief in Opposition in Klamath River Matter [McCarren Act]

Here is the brief in Klamath Irrigation District v. Bureau of Reclamation (No. 23-216):

Petition is here.

Louis LaRose Walks On

Louis LaRose, former chair of the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, has walked on. News profile here.

As chairman, Mr. LaRose testified on behalf of the bill that would become the Indian Child Welfare Act. Justice Brennan’s majority opinion in Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield quoted extensively from Louis’s testimony. Footnote 25 reads:

In large part, the concerns that emerged during the congressional hearings on the ICWA were based on studies showing recurring developmental problems encountered during adolescence by Indian children raised in a white environment. See n. 1, supra.See also 1977 Hearings at 114 (statement of American Academy of Child Psychiatry); S.Rep. No. 95-597, p. 43 (1977) (hereinafter Senate Report). More generally, placements in non-Indian homes were seen as “depriving the child of his or her tribal and cultural heritage.” Id. at 45; see also 124 Cong.Rec. 38102-38103 (1978) (remarks of Rep. Lagomarsino). The Senate Report on the ICWA incorporates the testimony in this sense of Louis La Rose, chairman of the Winnebago Tribe, before the American Indian Policy Review Commission:”I think the cruelest trick that the white man has ever done to Indian children is to take them into adoption courts, erase all of their records and send them off to some nebulous family that has a value system that is A-1 in the State of Nebraska and that child reaches 16 or 17, he is a little brown child residing in a white community, and he goes back to the reservation and he has absolutely no idea who his relatives are, and they effectively make him a non-person, and I think . . . they destroy him.”Senate Report at 43. Thus, the conclusion seems justified that, as one state court has put it, “[t]he Act is based on the fundamental assumption that it is in the Indian child’s best interest that its relationship to the tribe be protected.” In re Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. S-903, 130 Ariz., at 204, 635 P.2d at 189.

Thanks to Lucas LaRose.

Tanner Allread on SCOTUS’ Improper Use of Indian Removal Era Analysis in Modern Day Indian Law Cases

W. Tanner Allread has published “The Specter of Indian Removal: The Persistence of State Supremacy Arguments in Federal Indian Law” in the Columbia Law Review. PDF

Abstract:

In the 2022 case of Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, the Supreme Court departed from one of the foundational cases in federal Indian law, Worcester v. Georgia. Chief Justice John Marshall’s 1832 opinion had dismissed state power over Indian Country. But in Castro-Huerta, the Court took precisely the kind of arguments about state power that Chief Justice Marshall rejected in Worcester and turned them into the law of the land—without any recognition of the arguments’ Indian Removal–era origins.

This Article corrects the Court’s oversight. Relying on rarely utilized archival sources, it provides a historical narrative of the development of what the Article terms the theory of state supremacy, first articulated by the southern state legislatures in the Removal Era to justify state power over Native nations and eradicate Native sovereignty. Even though Worcester rejected this theory, Supreme Court Justices and state litigants have continued to invoke its tenets in Indian law cases from the late nineteenth century to the present. Castro-Huerta, then, is just the latest and most egregious example. And the decision’s use of Removal-era arguments revives the specter of Indian Removal in the present day.

This Article reveals that the continued use of state supremacy arguments defies constitutional law and federal Indian affairs policy, produces an inaccurate history of Native nations and federal Indian law, and perpetuates the racism and violence that characterized the Removal Era. Ultimately, this Article seeks to counter future attacks on tribal sovereignty and combat the broader revival of long-rejected federalism arguments.

Sneak Preview of ANOTHER Benally-Singel-Fletcher Talk Later Today, This One Called “Are We Still NDN?”

Yes, it’s gonna be at least partially about equal protection matters post-Brackeen, so perhaps it should be called “Shitting On Our Parade.” [comic book here]

SCOTUS Declines to Review Ninth Circuit’s Rule 19/Tribal Immunity Decision

Here is Monday’s order list.

The petition was Klamath Irrigation District v. Bureau of Reclamation: petition and opposition briefs.

Sarah Crawford, Reneau J. Longoria and Heather Whiteman Runs Him on 2023’s Major SCOTUS Decisions

Sarah Crawford, Reneau J. Longoria and Heather Whiteman Runs Him have published “Decisions Impacting Indian Country in the 2023 Supreme Court Term” in the Montana Lawyer.

SCOTUS Denies Stay in West Flagler Suit

Here are the materials in West Flagler Associates Ltd. v. Haaland:

Application for Stay

Federal Response

Order Denying Stay + Kavanaugh Statement

Seminole Letter

Lower court materials here.

Turtle Talk Live 2023 @ NAICJA

Full comic book here.

Montana Indian Law Section: ICWA, the Brackeen Decision & MT ICWA Statute — November 1, 2023

Here.

Tentative Agenda

Noon to 1 p.m.: The Impacts of the Brackeen Decision Moving Forward – 

1 to 2 p.m.: How the Brackeen Decision and the Recently Passed Montana ICWA Statute Will Impact Practitioners in Montana. 

Speakers

Professor Matthew Fletcher: Harry Burns Hutchins Collegiate Professor of Law the University of Michigan Law School

Kimberly Cluff: California Tribal Family Coalition

Kelly Driscoll: Montana Office of the State Public Defender, Missoula

April Olson: Rothstein Donatelli, Tempe, Arizona

Heather Tanana to Speak at UMLS Next Week