Lots of internet traffic on this case:
Faculty Lounge (Kate Fort’s Posting)
Constitutional Law Prof Blog (context relating to Indian boarding schools)
SCOTUSblog (argument preview, concluding with a note that the plain language favors tribal interests but Indians fare worse in SCT than prisoners)
Tulalip News (Q&A with Cherokee counsel)
An excerpt (the full article text is available on the Cherokee Nation website):
Nimmo was born in Tahlequah, Oklahoma, the capital of Cherokee Nation. She was raised in Warner, Oklahoma, which, she likes to say, is probably the only town in the country with a college and no stoplight. “It’s that small,” she said. She has a master’s in business administration from Northeastern State University in Tahlequah and a law degree from the University of Tulsa College of Law.
The Cherokee Nation’s attorney general’s office is midsized “by Oklahoma standards,” 10 attorneys. Nine are tribal citizens and one is an “honorary” Cherokee. They are prosecutors in Cherokee court and in-house counsel to Cherokee Nation by advising its departments, handling contracts and appeals before administrative boards, among other duties.
Nimmo joined the attorney general’s office right out of law school in 2008. “I was in the top five percent of my class and did some internships at some big law firms in Tulsa,” she recalled. “I quickly realized that was not what I wanted to do when I graduated. Part of it was I wanted to be in a courtroom. I also didn’t want to do solo. This is a great place to work. As an attorney, I’m salaried and don’t do billable hours. Why would you ever leave that?
“Indian law is a tight knit group of attorneys. Whether you work in-house for a tribe or represent a tribe, every Indian law decision in an appellate court can affect all tribes.”
Last Monday, the Casey Family Programs held a press briefing on the amicus brief in support of ICWA in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. The audio is here.
The press release and other information is here and can also be found through a previous posted blog here.
One of the organizations that signed onto the brief was National Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA), which was holding their annual conference last week. As a CASA volunteer and volunteer coordinator, I had the opportunity of attending the conference. I also assisted in the presentation of an ICWA workshop to other CASA volunteers and staff. If anyone would like the handout we used in the presentation or more information let me know.
A powerful read. Update — We’ll keep this on the front page of Turtle Talk for a few days.
Here.
An excerpt:
The United States Supreme Court next Tuesday hears argument in a head-spinning case that blends the rank bigotry of the nation’s past with the glib sophistry of the country’s present. The case is about a little girl and a Nation, a family and a People. The question at the center of it has been asked (and answered) over and over again on this blessed continent for the past 400 years: Is the law of the land going to preclude or permit yet another attempt to take something precious away from an Indian?
Update: Kate Fort’s post on the case here on the Faculty Lounge.
Here:
Tuesday, April 9, 2013 – The Battle for Baby Veronica (listen)
The United States Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl next week. The case could have long term effects on future adoptions of Native children. The child, a member of the Cherokee Nation, was given up for adoption by her non-Native mother without the consent of the father. At the heart of the Supreme Court case is the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), which regulates adoptions of Native children outside of their tribe. We’re taking a closer look at this case and what it means for Native America. How might the outcome of the case impact families or tribes? What’s the role of tribes in the adoption process? Guests include Chrissi Nimmo (Cherokee) Assistant Attorney General for the Cherokee Nation.
Marcia Zug has published “Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl: Two-and-a-Half-Ways to Destroy Indian Law” in Michigan Law Review’s First Impressions.
The synopsis:
In December 2011, Judge Malphrus of the South Carolina family court ordered Matt and Melanie Capobianco to relinquish custody of Veronica, their two-year-old, adopted daughter, to her biological father, Dusten Brown. A federal statute known as the Indian Child Welfare Act (“ICWA”) mandated Veronica’s return. However, the court’s decision to return Veronica pursuant to this law incited national outrage and strident calls for the Act’s repeal. While this outrage was misplaced, it may nonetheless have influenced the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to hear the appeal. The case of Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl is emotionally complicated, but it is not legally complex. Therefore, the Court’s interest is surprising and likely means that this case will determine more than the fate of a single child.
The court returned Veronica Capobianco to her biological father because the termination of his parental rights and the subsequent adoption attempt did not comply with the requirements of ICWA. South Carolina law would have permitted the involuntary termination of Brown’s parental rights, but ICWA supersedes state law and forbids such involuntary terminations. Consequently, because Brown never relinquished his rights, the family court held that Veronica was not eligible for adoption and that she must be returned to Brown. The South Carolina Supreme Court subsequently affirmed this decision. The court agreed that under the clear language of the Act, Brown qualified as a “parent” and that the termination of his parental rights must comply with ICWA.
From today’s SCT order:
Upon consideration of the motions for leave participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and the motions for divided argument, the time is to be divided as follows: 20 minutes for petitioners, 10 minutes for respondent Guardian ad Litem, 20 minutes for respondent Birth Father, and 10 minutes for the Solicitor General.
Presumably that means:
20 minutes for petitioners — Lisa Blatt
10 minutes for respondent Guardian ad Litem — Paul Clement
20 minutes for respondent Birth Father — Charles Rothfield
10 minutes for the Solicitor General.
Another monster Indian law argument before the Supremes.
Indian tribes, individuals, law clinics, bar associations, and other entities inundated the Supreme Court with amicus briefs in the Baby Veronica case. Here is our guide to the amici (we’ve highlighted the must-read briefs in red):
The United States:
Here.
As always, the most important brief.
The State AGs Brief:
The AGs’ brief may also be the most important amicus brief, in that 18 state attorneys general signed on to a brief drafted and distributed by the Arizona AG. No state AG filed an amicus brief supporting petitioners. While the contents of the brief are important (they attack the existing Indian family exception (EIF) and provide a defense against the federalism attack on ICWA), the mere fact of the brief is very powerful. The Minnesota DHS brief is along the same lines.
The Strategic Briefs:
12-399 bsac Association on American Indian Affairs (aka the NCAI brief)
12-399 Professors of Indian Law Amicus (the legal history brief)
12-399 bsac Seminole Tribe of Florida et al (the constitutionality brief)
These three briefs form the cornerstone of the amicus strategy. As usual, the NCAI brief offers greater national context for the dispute in issue, offering legislative history and even some sociological history. The law profs brief, IMHO the best law profs brief ever filed in the Indian cases before the Supreme Court, is the legal history of ICWA, written by one of the very best legal historians out there, Stuart Banner, former SOC clerk. The constitutionality brief defends against the farthest-reaching attacks of some of the petitioners, that ICWA is unconstitutional. It focuses on the doctrine we call the political status doctrine, first articulated by the Supreme Court in Morton v. Mancari.
Briefs Authored by Supreme Court Specialists:
12-399 bsac CaseyFamilyPrograms (Patricia Millett)
12-399 bsac CurrentandFormerMembersofCongress (Kathleen Sullivan)
12-399 bsac Adult Pre-ICWA Indian Adoptees (Ed DuMont)
It’s unfair to characterize these briefs solely as briefs authored by Supreme Court specialists, but names mean a great deal to clerks when slogging through a very large pile of amicus briefs. The Millett brief may be critically important, given that so many adoption and children’s organizations signed on, responding in force to the petitioners’ adoption policy positions.
Social Science Brief:
12-399 bsac Nat’l Lat Psych Assoc
I guess the closest thing we have to a Brandeis brief in this case. Could be critical, especially since the social science that persuaded Congress to adopt ICWA in 1978 has not aged all that well. Also, it responds directly to the junk science on attachment theory Mark Fiddler keeps pitching. Continue reading
Here:
11-399 bsac The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma
12-399 bsac 63 California Indian Tribes
12-399 bsac American Civil Liberties Union
12-399 bsac CurrentandFormerMembersofCongress
12-399 bsac Family Law Professors
12-399 bsac Friends Committee on National Legislation et al.
12-399 bsac Hamline Univ Sch of Law Child Advocacy Clinic
12-399 bsac Lower Sioux Indian Community
12-399 bsac Nat’l Lat Psych Assoc
12-399 bsac Seminole Tribe of Florida et al
12-399 bsac Tanana Chiefs Conference, et al
12-399 bsac The Honorable Abby Abinanti Chief Justice of the Yurok Tribal Court (2)
12-399 Professors of Indian Law Amicus
12-399 bsac Adult Pre-ICWA Indian Adoptees
12-399 bsac Associationon American Indian Affairs
12-399 bsac CaseyFamilyPrograms
12-399 bsac Inter Tribal Council of AZ
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.