Here is today’s order.
The grant is limited to question 1 — here are the questions presented:
Cert stage materials in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta:
Lower court materials:
Here are the materials in Wellman v. Orcutt (D. Mont.):
I’m still cleaning the data for the 2021 ICWA cases, but here are a few screen shots that might be interesting. Federal cases are excluded. This dataset is based on my reading of Lexis/Westlaw alerts as well as a few individual state alerts. Mistakes are mine.
Here are the materials in United States v. Ortega (D. Ariz.):
News coverage of the acquittal here.
The Colorado Court of Appeals analyzed the regs on the reason to know issue, a similar argument to the In re Z.J.G. case from Washington. And as in Z.J.G., the Department is arguing for a narrower interpretation. However, the Court of Appeals reasoned:
Recall that the federal regulation and the Colorado statute implementing ICWA’s “reason to know” component distinguish between information that the child is an Indian child, 25 C.F.R. § 23.107(c)(1); § 19-1-126(1)(a)(II)(A), and information indicating that the child is an Indian child, 25 C.F.R. § 23.107(c)(2); § 19-1- 126(1)(a)(II)(B). These two provisions cannot have the same meaning because that would make one superfluous.
***
As a result, divisions of this court have repeatedly recognized that, where a district court receives information that the child’s family may have connections to specific tribes or ancestral groups, the court has “reason to know” that the child is an Indian child — even where the information itself does not establish that the child fully satisfies the definition of an Indian child
Register here.
It’s ‘cuz of PL280 (and, yeah, I know you’re out there Red Lakers, so chill). Here is the opinion in Martin v. State of Minnesota:
Here are the materials in Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation v. State of Idaho (D. Idaho):
Here are the materials in Miller v. Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (N.C. Ct. App.):
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.